Derek 2.0

You bet.....But during that timeframe they were largely based in the interior doing private charters, heli-logging etc……So you’re now suggesting the Navy charted a helicopter, from a company that at the time worked heavily in the forestry industry, to conduct a calibration on a CIWS, that was years away from being installed on said ship, when they had a gaggle of Sea Kings, Silver Stars and Auroras based on Vancouver Island already paid for and intended to work in said environment?

And that company would be? I've also worked directly for and continue to sub for Bell Textron if that helps before you answer.

I agree........I still haven't heard if he even had his PAL yet....The RCMP has stated that he was not known to them prior...not sure if that includes the CFC.

The High Brass is a sure give-away

I thought you said you had coffee aboard after? Was the HeliDet aboard? Based on when these claimed events took place, I very well could have been aboard myself.......with that said, outside of CT-133s, CP-140s and ourselves (CH-124s) I don't recall ever, charter aircraft playing with us in that timeframe.........What charter line did you fly for? I'm sure MERX would have records of any public tenders from waaaay back then.

As a member of the NFA (and NRA and CSSA) I fully agree the timing and content were/are off base and inane…..and a great many members, that like myself donate lots of money to them agree……The reset and self diagnostic is well underway.

It’s a shame the negotiations weren’t split into wages/benefits and class size and composition…….Simply put, I can’t see either side negotiating a deal based on composition until after the appeal…..then after it’s taken to the Supreme Court of Canada etc etc….. Ultimately, and in my view rightfully so, if the BCTF goes on a full strike, they loose.

You're the one that stated the Straits of Juan de Fuca........Now do you now the rocky geographic feature closest to said restricted area?

Great, I served aboard Huron in the early 90s after she came out West.......Of course, pre TRUMP (Playboy bunny funnel era), Huron didn’t even have CIWS So you calibrated the Phalanx on a ship that didn’t yet have one……. But I agree, this thread is on the F-35.... Any bets on when the selection will be made public? I’m still going with my earlier prediction of late on a Friday afternoon.

So you’re now claiming the Huron attempted to conduct a PAC for it’s Phalanx CIWS, sans a fully functioning air search radar, in a busy civil aviation route? That sounds fantastic…..

What year did this take place, and as I asked previous, was the HeliDet aboard? I ask since I know numerous folks on a personal level, both (former) ships crew, HeliDet and the former XO of 434 squadron (Who's grass you claim to have cut).......I'd love to verify your story.

Huh?

No confusion at all……but you seem confused, first you claimed to be orbiting, then trouble determining range, followed by a controlled approach to a destroyer…….All for the calibration for a CIWS? That of course leaves out the fact that the navy didn’t use charters in the timeframe that you subscribe.

Which radar? The ships? You still haven’t addressed why a civilian charter was used as opposed to then operational military owned and operated, dedicated aircraft. Was the HeliDet aboard at the time?

Hardly young…..and I do know the difference between both in their civil and military applications, fore I have a background in both fields, but I fail to see what this would have to do with a PAC for CIWS…..So why was their trouble in determining range in your fairy tale? Was the ships air search radar not working? Was the earth's magnetic field interfering with triangulation and other basic maths?

Sure you were……..As stated, there was no contracting out to charters, post TRUMP modifications, fore the air force had aircraft dedicated to said tasks..........As to your claim of difficulty in determining distance, are you now suggesting the SPQ 502 was down?

Sure...why do you ask?

So you claim to have partook in the calibration of the Huron’s CIWS post-TRUMP (Out West in the Juan de Fuca strait) by orbiting in circles around the ship in a chartered flight? That’s odd, since a PAC for CIWS (be it Phalanx, Goalkeeper etc) has to determine both gun deflection and mean point of impact. This can’t be determined mathematically by an orbiting target when the CIWS is intended to engage closing and perpendicular targets…..to say nothing of the limited firing arcs imposed on said CIWS by the end user. As to the rest, I’ve sailed aboard both Huron and Algonquin (pre and post TRUMP), as such know that the post TRUMP ship-wide shakedowns were conducted on the East coast for the class (so any needed corrections could be undertaken at the yard that performed the work). To say nothing of the fact that Huron started to go into reduced operating status (of which it never returned) in late 1999, this fact combined with the air force still operating dedicated EW/utility squadrons (on both coasts) until ~2002 would negate your claim of flying a charter in such a role…… And of course, out West, any calibrations to a ships radars wouldn’t take place in a busy shipping and international air route such as the Straits of Juan de Fuca………. I call Bull-Jive on your claim. But back to the F-35 Byers doesn’t have a clue……..What made us actually choose the F/A-18 over the cheaper F-16 was that at the time, the Falcon didn’t have the required radar integration with the AIM-7 Sparrow, which we required for NORAD…….. As to the CF-104 lawndart and it’s very high rate of crashes, this is clearly attributed to intended role well in service, which was our contribution to low-level NATO (nuclear) strike in West Germany. As mentioned above, aircraft are vulnerable to swallowing a bird at low levels (take off & landing), so an aircraft that’s intent is to fly at low levels increases this risk factor. As to your inane statement on the P&W F135, due to the nature of it’s VCE technology, it’s performance allows the F-35 to fly (and fight) a profile that legacy aircraft can only achieve with reheated thrust, which also adds numerous negative attributes (the cyclic argument of external tanks and increased drag namely), which ultimately decreases the effectiveness of legacy aircraft (when contrasted with the F-35) Simply put, a legacy aircraft, loaded with external ordinance and fuel tanks will have a cruising speed, marked level of agility and range far less then a clean F-35 that carries it’s stores and ordinance internally. As to visibility, how many legacy aircraft can track and engage targets with a 360 degree coverage arc?

Nope? Where, per the QR&O and the NDA, in your view, was protocol not followed?

Yes, I know…..along with many members, both past and present and their families…..In other words, they couldn’t be bothered to pay their respects.

As per the event historic, he, along with the rest of the Order of Precedence, understood and followed protocol quite well.

I do understand (and practiced) the protocol quite well.

It does per the Canadian Forces historic Order of Precedence.......... So why didn't the leaders of the Liberals and NDP attend?

Ok, then as I said to you above, you then don't understand the Order of Precedence of the Canadian Forces.

He did......did you not watch the ceremony and/or read any of the post ceremony media coverage?