Derek 2.0

In my opinion, as noted the size of the force and the fact that the Mayerthorpe inquiry wasn't completed until Spring 2011........

I agree, but this will require significant changes to the RCMP’s firearms training program, which at Depot is currently 10-14 days exposure to their handguns and shotguns……..to train new members in the effective use of the rifles will take much longer, likewise annual training to requalify on. Why? Colt Canada, the only firearms producer in Canada, is actually very small, with only several hundred employees and limited production. No doubt, but it could be just as easy (as indicated in the report) said members may not have died if they had of been wearing ballistic vests/plate carriers they were issued (IIRC were in their trunks).......but with that, training ~20000+ members in its proper use will/is taking time. The RCMP, as mentioned, are given ~two weeks introduction to firearms in Depot then three days annually to requalify on their service weapon……..versus a member in the Canadian Forces given months on initial training, followed by months annually……….as said, outside of members with military service, or those that own privately AR-15s or other rifles, the vast majority of members have no more exposure to the C7/C8 family of rifles then the average Canadian……… Equipping the RCMP with carbines is far more complex then handing the rifles out of the box with a couple of boxes of ammunition* and instructing the members to read the user manual. *I would also wonder if the shortages in 5.56mm/.223 Rem ammunition has also played into delaying introduction of the rifle.

That of course is your uninformed opinion, from the onset, they were never intended to be warships (nor polar icebreakers) but patrol vessels, of which they will be vast improvements over the vessels they replace..........and of course the Coast Guard is getting replacements for their icebreaker fleet.

Not at all, I would assume that aside from the possibility of the case being appealed, I’m certain Eastwood recognizes that if he did mention Ventura, once Eastwood eventually dies, Ventura would fleece his estate and rob the inheritance from Clint’s children. Ironic that Ventura makes a living off of presenting an alternative to what is commonly thought as fact, likewise the miscommunication on his part as to being a former SEAL……unlike Chris Kyle, who actually was.

Just watched American Sniper.......For those that don't know Chris Kyle's story and want to see the movie, my advice go in blind (as my wife did)......I'll leave my review as simply WoW.......Eastwood has another Million Dollar Baby or Unforgiven on his hands, but based on an actual true story (as told by Kyle in his book)........... Also, I have a new respect for Bradley Cooper as an Actor, I always thought him entertaining, but never an actual talented actor..I think his performance warrants an Oscar........ Worth seeing in the theater, and I'm certain will be the blockbuster of 2015........

But it is not simply ordering a rifle (Aside from the fact Colt Canada can only produce so many a year), but ensuring RCMP members receive proper training in its use, but also creating policy on its usage, creating/expanding training establishments and ensuring proper armourer ...... If as mentioned the Canadian Forces took a decade changing platforms (Likewise the United States military decades long transitioning from the M-14 to M-16) or even the RCMP itself spending the later 80s through the 90s transitioning from revolvers to semi-automatics, its not unreasonable to expect the introduction of a rifle, to a force namely trained in the use of handguns and shotguns, to take some amount of time. And you're right, we are talking rifles, rifles to be given to officers that (outside members with military/ERT service) have never been trained in their safe and proper use........

Perspective is clearly needed……..it took the Canadian Forces ~ a decade to transition from the C1 family to the C7/C8 family………The RCMP is adding a capability to their force that they haven’t had since they rode horses and carried 1894 Winchesters……. I have no problem dumping on the RCMP oligarchs when warranted, but the issuance of military carbines to the force is no small task and it wouldn’t surprise me the least if a complete implementation isn’t achieved until post-2020…….

Where did I say that? I’m not irritated the slightest, as I’m quite aware of your ignorance on the subject. Again, both blast/fragmentation effects are dependent upon a whole host of other variables.... Why would I do that? Correctly acknowledging? Ask yourself this, why were “cookie” bombs not used against reinforced concrete targets like hydro-dams or U-Boat pens if explosive blast was/is the most effective force against such targets? As pointed out above, make sure in future you don't get caught in your own logic-trap Now this evening’s homework for you is to answer this: What would cause more damage: Placing a lit firecracker in your opened right hand or a placing a lit firecracker within your clenched left hand? Now give it a good think, gleam as much knowledge from wiki as you see fit and get back to me……then once you’ve answered correctly we’ll delve into fuzes, blast elevation, proximity of the target and fragmentation………if you’re really ambitious, revisit our conversation from several years ago in which I taught you the physics behind the transfer of energy. I look forward to your answer in the morning!!

In fairness, there is quiet a difference between procuring for and training a force measured in the tens of thousands versus a small local force measured in the hundreds…...regardless, I doubt a “RCMP union” will have little impact on issues other than pay and benefits for its membership.

Certainly, I think the defined terms from said loadout link are rather self-explanatory. I’m sorry but your questions are both unclear and juvenile, and resemble one asking if a piece of string is long enough to cover a thing……….As said already though, your question has been answered in the most simplistic terms that you should be able to comprehend. Now this latest question is rife with differing and undefined examples……Clearly a modern military can and will attack both a concrete structure, a railway or a dock with a modern medium cased/general purpose bomb, but then with said differing targets another host of variables is at play (i.e. blast location, fuses etc.) in the attacks effectiveness…. A tangent? You asked a question several posts ago, I simply answered......

Sure it does........One wouldn’t expect an incendiary loadout to be comprised of armour-piercing bombs for instance. I answered your question in my reply in which you quoted. So you feel the South Koreans could still defeat a nuclear armed North Korea without the aide of the United States?

No, the loadout link defines the intended usage of the bombs, complied of varying types to result in the most effective outcome.... i.e. blast, demolition, incendiary etc That would be predicated on the composition of the bomb itself. With the medium case/general purpose bomb, based on its composition of a ~50/50 explosive to casing ratio, both the blast and fragmentation. Certainly, case in point your evolving positions…..I stand to be corrected, but I don’t feel you’re still of the opinion the South Koreans alone could defeat the North Koreans. If so, in the span of several weeks, your prior opinion has been changed by gainful knowledge shared with you by myself……… Or do you still think the South Koreans on their own could defeat the nuclear armed North?

In the loadout denoting industrial demolition clearly... Perhaps confusing for yourself, but for most, the moniker "General Purpose" would be sufficient to expound upon their intended purpose. Brilliant, one could also surmise that if one where to reduce the casing to explosive ratio of such a bomb, the blast would be magnified, inversely if one were to increase the casing to explosive ratio the fragmentation effects would also be magnified……...doing so would clearly having differing effects on differing targets, allowing the operator to use more optimal loadouts when attacking said targets. I’m glad you’re learning, my time spent teaching you these nuances hasn’t been wasted.

Indeed, interesting performance based contract that has implications for all involved, be they labour, supplier, the Government or the RCN.....I would expect after the first, second at the most, AOPS is complete, any issues will be identified and hopefully resolved.

In fairness, after the events in Paris, I believe Trudeau sent out a handful of "Tweets"......of course, who's to say if he was the one to send them, or some profound staffer or aide.

Aaah, so reverting back to the link, looking at said "PLUMDUFF" loadout, one can see said load's intended purpose was, and I quote, "Blast, Demolition and Fire", comprised of said "cookie" (blast) and 500 lbs medium cased general purpose bombs (demolition) and incendiary bombs (fire).........a clear combination of the other stated blast and demolition loadouts And the primary targets for such loadouts? Heavily industrialised cities or better put, concrete targets within cities.... Thanks for yet again proving my point. Again with the personal attacks.....you're clearly becoming unhinged......take a break and reread the link you provided. Then ask yourself, why it differentiates between the differing loadouts, their composition and intended targets…….there is clearly no need for interpretation of something ever so clear in its intent.

I don’t put much stock in polls, as I’ve said numerous times, but I would also expect a slight improvement in NDP numbers at the expense of the Liberals, as the NDP further expands upon its own platform…..I don’t see how the Liberals can continue to not release further policy pieces, nor Trudeau to continue to respond to “news events” through Twitter or his proxy Marc Garneau............

I would think the intent of each loads is rather self-explanatory i.e. antisubmarine patrol, blast & incendiary or industrial demolition.... Certainly and as described, said loadouts are differentiated by target types…….pointed enough I should think. No leap at all.......it clearly proves HC bombs were not defined as demolition bombs, fore clearly they would be included within the defined demolition loaouts........ Are you now claiming your loadout link is rife with "flimsy semantics" and "fabricated meanings"? Didn’t you yourself not speak to the dangers of hyperbole? The South Koreans could defeat the nuclear armed North Koreans, without the United States.......

The link clearly has been modified/edited, ~20 minutes ago, since I posted: Interesting contract none the less, well being far from the doom and gloom claimed by the Opposition and namely the CBC.......

AOPS contract signed So despite media claims that the Government would only be able purchase half the number of ships with the allotted budget framework, for an increase of several hundred million dollars, the Government and RCN will get all six of the planned AOPS.......with production starting later this year (like I said a few months ago) and in service by 2018......

Yet contended by your loadout link.......the very link provided by yourself. Yet the site specifically defines the purpose of each loadout and its intended purpose……From your link, did it not specifically state the “cookie” was used in blast/incendiary loads? Now with heavy industrial demolition loads, was not their primary loads comprised of MC/GP bombs? If so, how do you make the one in the same leap? Not at all, clearly a portion of said cabin, like Dresden, could burn down.

I agree, and don't really know what their expectations were......

With Target, as I said, they went too fast.......had they have opened say 1/3rd the number of stores, well ensuring appealing products and establishing viable supply chains they might not be in this fix.......fault is to be found with Target itself, not the Canadian consumer.......As said, it was a warmed over Zellers, in largely warmed over Zellers stores with a dab of paint and new lighting, selling largely Zellers like crap.........Canadians can buy crap at Walmart, which is clearly successful in Canada.

I think it speaks to management and piss-poor marketing.......in my opinion Target jumped in both feet and failed. Contrasted with retail chain Cabela's, which has taken a gradual expansion into the Canadian market, opening one store at a time, well only expanding further once each stores shows profitability. Big American chains can work, well passing on savings to Canadian consumers, if they take a gradual approach.........Target just replaced the failing Zellers chain with much the same business model.......I expect Sears won't be far behind.

I'm certain the 17000 workers care.........My only experience with the store was cutting through it from the parking lot into the mall....my wife went their several times to shop, but found it nothing to jump up and down over......still feel sorry for those that lost their jobs.