CanPol: Thread of the Year Edition

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither


From exactly what aircraft do we refuel over the middle of the Pacific or Atlantic? Canadian ones? Based out of where? Your ass?

Still insisting on sticking your head up your ass, eh.

First see my previous post about aircraft using large amount of fuel on take off and climbing to cruising altitude.

Secondly, the aircraft get refueled by Hercs that have been converted as airtankers. We also have new air tankers. They should be operating now.

They do not have to refuel over the middle of the Atlantic. It would be done closer to the coast of Canada.

Air Command has been doing this for about 40 years. That's how we used to fly fighters to Europe and back.

The existing Herc fleet can fly from Gander to London directly, IIRC. From there they can fly to Afghanistan.

Edit: our planes can also land and refuel in Iceland if necessary.

Another edit: By the way, the A400M would also have to stop and refuel if it flew from Gander to Kabul.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Incidently...

We need subs (an offensive weapons system) more than we need troops stationed near populous and disaster prone areas to aid civil authorities,

Jesus, you really are stupid.

How many times do I have to tell you that we have troops in every major Canadian city.

In Calgary, you have the Calgary Highlanders, the King's Own Calgary Regiment and an medical company.

In Vancouver, there are the Seaforths, a medical company and an engineering squadron.

Join the reserves, and find out what they do, although I doubt they would have you.

.

[Flubber]

Tingkai and Notyoueither

I have seen many people that disagree on many things but I don't know that I have ever before seen two people that disagree on EVERYTHING. Its as if one of you says something and the other has to dsagree with every element of it . . .

or do you just never bother to mention areas where you might agree like " The Canadian forces has been underfunded" or " a minority government is a likely result of this election"

[Flubber]

Tingkai

I was surprised to see you defending the purchase of the used British subs. Your rhetoric about "not needed" or "designed to counter non-existent threats" which you used regarding other possible military expenditures could be thrown back to you here

Is there any element of the Liberal defense policy that you DISagree with ??

[Flubber]

More generally

My thoughts for the military/coast guard is that we should have a greater naval/ coast guard presence throughout Canadian waters. These do not necessarily have to be large warships but coastal patrol vessels.

WE have a very long coast and one of the greatest possible threats to our nation is the smuggling in of toxic or nuclear substances. Such coastguard/military vessels could also serve roles in fisheries monitoring, environmental monitoring and yes sovereignty patrols in the north.

and yes Tingkai I know we have such vessels, I just don't think we have enough of them.

For the more hardcore military itself, keys would include better gear for

1.the ground troops ( including good comm gear, the right camo for the environment, better APCs)

2. Our airforce-- better helos for ground support and better airlift capability. Leasing foreign planes might work sometimes but our military should not have to rely on planes from other countries to get around. I leave tactical fighters and bombers as a pretty low priority

3. Navy-- apart from additional patrol vessels I believe in a northern capability. We should have a base ready to go to support northern patrols and much closer than existing naval bases. I don't necessarily mean a large base but a place that could support a continued presence in the north .

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Flubber
More generally

My thoughts for the military/coast guard is that we should have a greater naval/ coast guard presence throughout Canadian waters. These do not necessarily have to be large warships but coastal patrol vessels.

I agree completely.

One of the problems the Liberals have created is that the navy is doing so many missions overseas that we have very few ships patrolling Canadian waters. That's a major problem. We need to ships to patrol our southern waters before we start talking about creating arctic bases.

Overall, the Liberals have starved the military of money for so long that in some respects we have to start rebuilding from the basics.

This is why I object to the grandiose plans of the Conservatives that will add new burdens when the Forces are struggling to do the jobs they have right now.

We have made some strides in the last five years, but the biggest problem remains the lack of manpower. With the forces doing so many missions, we have a major problem training new people.

We also have problems recruiting in certain areas.

The forces has also failed to tap into new immigrant communities. One solution is to create reserve units that say "we want you". That means creating regiments that appeal to the different ethnic minorities. We have the Toronto Scottish Regiment and the Irish Regiment, so why not the Canadian Punjabi Regiment or the Canadian Chinese Regiment. But before we do that, we need money to hire and equip more people for the reserves.

As for the subs, they are a vital offensive weapon should we ever need to go to war. We can't afford to lose the skills required to be submariners. If we lose it, it can't be replaced in months, or even years. The same goes for our fighters and our tanks.

By comparison, our troops receive arctic training. Our troops are trained for parachute drops. Our navy is capable of operating in the arctic as is Air Command. And we have troops trained to respond to natural disasters.

[Seeker]

Wasn't there a Sikh regiment at one time that got folded?

For the military I think the priority should be upgrading and expanding our most important contribution: air power. There needs to be more and a new fighter-bomber. Replace the aging CF-18.

The rest is all job-creation programme frippery.

[Tingkai]

No, we've never had a Sikh regiment.

The CF-18s were upgraded a couple of years ago.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Seeker
Wasn't there a Sikh regiment at one time that got folded?

For the military I think the priority should be upgrading and expanding our most important contribution: air power. There needs to be more and a new fighter-bomber. Replace the aging CF-18.

The rest is all job-creation programme frippery.

Coastal patrol is job creation frippery ?? I can't agree.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tingkai
.

The forces has also failed to tap into new immigrant communities. One solution is to create reserve units that say "we want you". That means creating regiments that appeal to the different ethnic minorities. We have the Toronto Scottish Regiment and the Irish Regiment, so why not the Canadian Punjabi Regiment or the Canadian Chinese Regiment. But before we do that, we need money to hire and equip more people for the reserves.

hmmm-- I could see such a unit being a human rights nightmare. Can the white Scottish guy join if he wants to join the reserve unit closest to him? How about the 10 women that try to join an ethnic reserve regiment where such ethnicity would never accept serving alonside women. I'm not saying its a TERRIBLE idea . . . its just that a lot of thought would have to go into such an initiative since there would be minefields

[Kontiki]

I think we could safely scrap our heavy armour and instead upgrade/expand our fleet of armoured fighting vehicles. Our tanks are never going to be deployed and they're last generation anyway.

[Flubber]

[QUOTE] [SIZE=As for the subs, they are a vital offensive weapon should we ever need to go to war. We can't afford to lose the skills required to be submariners. If we lose it, it can't be replaced in months, or even years. The same goes for our fighters and our tanks.
[/QUOTE]

I happen to agree that if we are going to bother to have a military, we should equip them and that a submarine arm is part of any military for a nation as maritime as our own. These particular subs are not looking like an especially wise move though.

As for tanks and fighter/bombers , I see that we need a few good ones of these so that skills and training can be maintained. While these items are important in the long run, we are not looking at being in any major tank battles in the near future and I would see those expenditures coming after helicopters and better APCs where the need is more immediate for the missions our folks are performing NOW

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I think we could safely scrap our heavy armour and instead upgrade/expand our fleet of armoured fighting vehicles. Our tanks are never going to be deployed and they're last generation anyway.

I almost feel the same way but think Canada should maintain a small more modern tank force with the idea that this would form a training core if we were ever called on for a major mobilization

[Kontiki]

What scenario can you envision where we would need a major mobilization of heavy armour?

[Ben Kenobi]

A Punjabi regiment would be in the best traditions of the British Empire. I dunno if our Liberals would find that prospect so appealing.

We have made some strides in the last five years, but the biggest problem remains the lack of manpower. With the forces doing so many missions, we have a major problem training new people.

Yeah, as with anyone, there are so many people that will be retiring from the forces, if they haven't done so already.