Army Guy

Looking back at the start of the replacement program you are right the aircraft you mentioned were considered as replacements, as back then the F-35 was just alittle more than a glimmer in someones eyes....but as time past the F-35 became more than a glimmer but they actually produced working copies....and another gen 5 aircraft was born, a cheaper alternative to the F-22.... The Airforce wants a gen 5 aircraft for many reasons, the F-22 is way out of our price range, that leaves the F-35...which is still very expensive....Don't get me wrong the F-18E/F is a great aircraft today, and into the future...but it's design is still 15 years old today..... Add that to our purcurment history, the whole UNKNOWN UCAV world, our current government eagerness to go ahead with this project, how much more aircraft we are getting with the F-35...., Why would'nt the Airforce get on board.... I do agree with critics that 65 aircraft is not going to be enough, considering accidents,or losses, plus the fact there will be more missions than aircraft....i think in the near future perhaps once production has been started you'll see more aircraft purchased....i think the government already knows this and is misleading our tax payers "i guess it's cracking on nut at a time" As for the single engine, this was once a major concern when we purchased the F-18, however Lockheed has already responded to this with todays engines having closed the safety gap completely, the F-16 actually has a better safety record than the F-18.... That and the fact that the Navy and Marines have also chosen the F-35 as the next replacement aircraft which have the same safety requiements as the Canadians ....I will say they may not have had a choose as it is the only gen 5 aircraft available and it is single engine....and the f-22 once again out of price range....

It is the same Airforce, the same ones that have said that the F-35 may infact be the last manned fighter they will produce. And while they have sunk alot of funding into drones, it was a critical step perhaps the first step into future UCAV designs... All that being said i don't think AI tech has reached a level of maturity to fly a fighter fully armed just yet, or we would have seen it already...the US navy has the X-45 and is testing it on operational Aircraft carriers. but it is in a drone state currently.... Regardless of politics within the military , the one thing that is for sure is the government controls the entire military, and the government is very concerned with money, money drives everything they do....introducing AI tech that can or could do the job would result in massive savings....enough for the government to over ride the Airforces concerns....But AI was just one of the techs you quoted on others were replacing fossil based fuels, and new methods of Data control....these 2 alone would gain approval of the government and Airforce alike, imagine a fighter that has no range, and could stay airbourne until maintaince is required, or rearming....Fuel is one of those massive logistics problems that drive entire conflicts...and to eliminate that would give any military a huge advantage on the battlefield....be it on the ground , air, or sea....future aircraft, vehs, and ships, could carry more muntions and wpns sys....No i think if this tech was here they would have openly announced it, and like i said it would have revolutionized modern warfare.

This Turkey is put to bed, and will remain there until or if the liberals get in power.....and we will end up with a cheaper shit box airframe, waiting years for it to be delivered and when it is finally delivered it would cost more than the F-35.... thrown out because that is what was popular at the time..... Why stop at 21 BIL why not just round it up to 30 bil, i mean those figures include just a 20 year maint costs....and we will have it atleast 30 years....i say make it 40 bil because all of us know that 65 aircraft is not going to be enoungh, and does not take into effect of aircraft lost or damaged....shit lets make it 50 bil because we will have to buy all those new fancy wpns packages we don't have now.....we can do this all day.....it is going to cost 9 bil dollars to purchase the aircraft....any other cost will come out of the already established OEM budget which pays for current maint costs of the F-18's....which the F-35 will be much much cheaper to maintain....adding those costs to the end purchase price is decieving the public....

ESQ: Really because this are the very reasons the US airforce have encountered during it's research for new UCAV tech, and making this tech a reality.....I'm sure US airforces black programs have exhausted every possiabilty in finding solutions.....Some of which you mention if available today would revolutionize the entire air industry, it would change all forms of travel........imagine flying with no fossil based fuel at all....The money to be made on this tech would make it's inventor's rich beyond anyones dreams....

Ucav's today.... Advantages of Future UCAVs over Manned Aircraft Vehicle Cost Cheaper to build since pilot requirements such as cockpit controls and gauges, ejection seat, oxygen, canopy, and pressurization are unnecessary. Saves about 10 percent on overall vehicle cost, including remote-control equipment. Some advantages negated by remote ground-station costs. One of the big factors quoted by the pro UCAV crowd, however taking the pilot out of the plane only sees a 10 % saving.... Range and Endurance Longer flight times and ranges due to less drag and better engine placement without the canopy and cockpit. No human limits on flight-endurance time. Some UCAVs may fly for days over enemy territory. The UCAV that have the endurence are prop driven....those that have jet engines may have a small advantage over manned fighters but will will still need to refuel when making long range missions....but will still have a major advantage in regards to pilot fatigue No Crew Risk No political risk from casualties or POWs. Can employ nonlethal weapons to put an enemy to sleep such as acoustic or brain-wave manipulation. Can operate in a nuclear, biological,or chemical environment with no risk to the pilot. Survivability Unmanned design without a canopy makes aircraft smaller and lowers radar cross section. Absence of humans permits high 10G-plus turns to avoid enemy missiles. Training Most training for UCAV operators is in simulators. No dependence on weather or maintenance-ready aircraft. Periodic exercise participation such as Red Flags to test doctrine and manned-flight interface. Training and Support Costs With only periodic flight training and little to no maintenance on the majority of "stored" UCAVs, there is a large reduction in peacetime training, fuel, and maintenance support costs. This is a major cost savings area, and may be a major piont that sees more nations using UCAV's... Personnel Fewer pilots and support personnel are needed. UCAV operators can fly numerous UCAV sorties sequentially or at the same time. With few training flights, fewer maintenance personnel and less equipment are required. Some of the problems that come with operating UCAV's Datalink Communications- 1. Loss of control due to enemy jamming or signal manipulation, this is a major concern right now, and one that could result in some major investments, and R&D costs.... 2. Long connectivity lapses due to distance, satellite location, or friendly mutual interference, once again to solve this would require more investment into additional Sats, or improved coms stations. 3. Limited amount of frequency bandwidths to accommodate large numbers of secure links for multiple UCAV operations This factor really limits the amount and use of UCAV of the future in combat...to solve this issue new harden sat tech will have to be developed and will add to the costs of the UCAV program....and will limit the amount of UCAV that can fly , which means they will have to be augmented by Manned fighters .... Air Refueling 1. Transoceanic deployment distances and communications 2. Risk to KC-135 or KC-10 high-value assets 3. Tanker joinup and multiaircraft air refueling Currently there is no automated program to ensure the safety of refueling assets...I'm sure this is a minor problem but it still an obsticle. Operator Situational Awareness 1. Number of aircraft per operator or operators per aircraft 2. Air traffic control (ATC) and enemy airspace deconfliction from other aircraft 3. Threat reactions for visual antiaircraft artillery, infrared surface-to-air missiles, or enemy aircraft Emergencies 1. Less capability to rapidly assess and correct aircraft problems 2. Unable to see damage, feel small vibrations, or smell smoke 3. UAV-capable alternate airfield recovery due to fuel or weather My link Although the link is to another board the and the article is about turning the F-16 into UCAV it does talk alot about future UCAV's. Other problems currently the US airfoce is struggling with some minor issues regarding the Conventions and rules of engagement....which are limiting the use of Armed UAVs in operations today.The below link explains it all Rules of war

Well said BC.... I think it is time for the Tax payers to grow a set, and decide once and for all what it is they want in regards to defence, and stop whinning about the consquences.....either we leave it up to the US and live by their rules or we pay our own way and make our own rules....either way stop leading our military by acting like we do care....and let them get on with their lifes....i think we owe them atleast that....

So your a religous man, don't get me wrong i've prayed to the big man many times myself mostly when things hit the fan...but i've yet to see him to send down a lighten bolt and zap some Ahole who deserved it, or stop someone from getting hurt....I'm a firm believer that God has empowered us with enough common sense to take matters into our own hands....to do what is right... Thats the difference between us, for me there is no probably, the situation you describe calls for direct action, it needs to be stopped. Self defence is not the only instance were force might be nessicary to act. In Afghanistan we have a group of bullies and thugs inposing their will upon millions they do that via fear,torture, and threat of death, they suspended most human rights, and took that outside their border to impose it on others...by allowing terrorist groups to operate inside their country, and allowing them to export that terror to our shores.... And while there is many countries who have done worse or deserve intervention, Afghanistan is were we are today...we as a nation have the ability to make this right, by giving up now we send a clear message that you can defeat NATO by riding it out, they will grow tired and leave....Vietnam is a prime example of that....by finishing the job, we will also be sending a message that there is light at the end of the tunnel, change can be made and NATO is equiped to do that... No it's not always right, but most laws are to benifit the majority, not individuals.... Most western countries will gladly accept ex Canadian citizens, provided your not some jack the ripper, or other wing nut.

would you walk over and talk to your nieghbour's if he was abusing them or beating them, would you take action then....what does it take....for you to spring into action, to shut the game off, and actually take a stand....and yell over to your neighbor "hey lumpy, touch those kids one more time and i'm going to beat your ass....or are you the type to close the blinds and turn up the TV so you can't hear the screams......sometimes you just need to carry a big stick and use it becuase that is all that is left to do....it does not have to be respectful, but it is the right thing to do.... I'm not the guy that is being forced to be Canadian, i'm actually very happy conforming to the majority rules.... I is , if you conform with the laws set out by the majority. Bullshit...everyone is entilted to a citenship of one sort or another, not happy here in Canada as a Canadian citizen then apply for a new one some place else, once accepted you can denounce being a Canadian and all that stands for....free to live the dream...

Lets take a look at those purchases for a minute...Starting with the US Navy, an organization that already flys the F-18E/F in great numbers are currently purchasing the growler an specialized version of the F-18, NO mention anywhere that they are buying more f-18E/F just incase the F-35 program is a flop.......and why should'nt it it has the budget in which to do that, Canada does not....it also knows that it will take years to replace all of it's current fleet of F-18's , and still needs to operate combat ready sqns until then....NOT hedgeing their bets..... Australia, purchased the F-18F to replace it's current fleet of F-111, the 24 F-18F they have ordered 12 of them will be wired to be converted into Growlers....EA 18G's ....they are still looking at the F-35 program to replace it's F-18A....so they are NOT hedgeing their bets on another airframe..... Great Britian, their decision you may actually have a piont, however Britain is desparately trying to save their carrier program, and are willing to trade in the F-35B to do that.....I don't think they have made a final decision as of yet....as they are looking at serveral opitions on is to go from the F-35B to fewer F35C models , or go with the F-18F and upgrade at a later date..... Like I've said before, was the F-18 a Combat proven airframe when we purchased it....it had teething problems as well....and yet by the time we purchased most of those problems were worked out....but then again anything could have looked better next to the old F-104, and CF-5 it would replace. Having those insights would be valuable in this topic i agree, And i've never claimed to be a subject matter expert on the Airforce, but like you have kept an interest on the topic, and have read many articles written by the airforce, ie Canadian Military journal, etc etc....all written by currently serving or past serving members, and i trust their judgement on this matter.... Comparing the same reasons why we chose the F-18 with this purchase is alittle unfair, tech advances have elementated most of those reasons IE the need for a twin engine, etc etc....what has not been explained in detail is the reason WHY the Airforce wants this airframe....and yet some of the big driving factors are being swepted under the table, because of mainly price sticker shock..... Good economics, kind of ironic we are talking about good economics when we are talking about an aircraft that will be 30 plus years old once it is retired, and if we followed good economics we should have been planning this replacment some 15 years ago. and could have been flying the very aircraft we have discussed here.... But that is not how Canadians role is it, had we given our military the time and effort through out the good times and bad times it would not be in the state it is now...today most of our major platforms needs replacing or they face becoming useless on the battlefield...combine that fact with our historical purchasing plans and it makes since to purchase something still on the drawing boards, so it is still relevent when we decide to do the next purchase.... And while the F-35 has more to offer than our citizens want in a fighter, it does not mean that we do not or could not use those capabilities in the future....all one has to do is look at how many times our own troops have relied on foreign airpower to provide close air support, or Cap patrols....Having a aircraft that can do it all means alot not just to the airforce, but to our Navy and Army....I'd much rather rely on a Canadian pilot for ground support than a US one , no offence to US pilots but for some reason Canadians soldiers have had a string of bad luck when US pilots have been providing a service that Canadians could have just becuase they did not have the cash to do so, or the right equipment.... Hey i agree with you those aircraft that you've mentioned, are great aircraft and would meet all of Canada's needs today and into the near future....but your well aware of our purchase history so that begs this question will those same aircraft serve this nation some 30 to 40 years from now...will they be viable on the battlefield.... Those details are not being over looked, infact Lockheed is looking at them as we speak, we all have to remember is this aircraft is still in the testing phase, and has NOT reached production yet...we as a nation have atleast 8 more years before we see a F-35 painted in Canadian colors....thats alot of time.... The airial refeuling problem can be fixed, by either replacing the A models refueling system with the C models....as it is works with our current refueling system.....or we purchase new refueling system as SmallC suggested....As for the landing in high artic conditions I'm assuming that this is and will be a major concern for the US Airforce and it will get solved. I've posted the below references before on this topic, and all of them pretty much say the same thing i've posted here, that A) the F-35 is the aircraft the Airforce wants, and while it may be true that all pilots or members of the Airforce may or may not agree, it's the one they are getting.... the Airforce has studied this purchase for years, and have determined it's the aircraft of chose.C) that the price tag is 9 bil not 21 bil as qouted.....when you purchase a car or truck does the price tag the dealer qoutes you one that is off the lot or does it include the next 20 years of maint costs....which are covered under the OEM budget anyways..... This aircraft is atleast 5 to 6 years from entering mass production, most if not all it's current problems will be fixed...just the value of the orders at stack dictate that...that and the fact that there is only one other aircraft in the running and that is the other aircraft that competed for the airforces next fighter. And it is not as far along as lockheeds.... F-35. Replacing the F-18 over tasking the F-18 As for me actually being in the military, sorry,It's true, I'm an infanteer with 30 years experience behind him, but that does not really matter here does it, and personally don't give a rats ass if you doubt my qualifications or not, i've posted here before explaining i'm not here to be popular,or to spout the party line, just posting to clearify some myths and misunderstandings about our military, and to offer a soldiers view piont.... ..and while i may not be an Airforce subject matter expert, I do have an opinion, one based on facts being generated out of the Airforce....I doubt that all of those opinions are spouting the party line....it is after all them who will have to strap themsleves in to this aircraft and defend this nation....and i stand behind them, as one day i hope they will stand behind some Army program...

A US airforce order for over 2000 aircraft, that order would be a pretty good motivator, not to mention the hundards of other orders... Price would be a driving factor, c model is 30 million more which would mean even less aircraft than we ordered now, and when you compare the two 30 million does not get you a whole lot more. some range, and some extra ordance,... So we we convert them , no big deal, i doubt very much we will have to purchase the entire new refueler, besides we only have what 3 of them.... It's the aircraft that the airforce have chosen, they've studied the shit out of the problem and this is the one they have picked.....they've listed why , when and how....and while most Canadians don't like the price tag, they could not give a shit what plane they have chosen...and the price tag is 9 bil not 21 bil....the actual purchase price is 9 bil dollars for 65 airplanes....which includes planes, parts, training, and sims.... Since the airfoce jocks are the experts here , and i don't have to strap myself into one i'll defend there pick..... The defence of Canada is the prime role, next is living up to our defence agreements, NATO, and Norad, (this is proably going to see combat aircraft used in a combat role...) You mean 9 bil dollar purchase....does the public get a say into any purchase made by our government....or is it just this one... i wonder if the public opinion would change if the world turned to shit tommorow, and their sons and daughters were strapping themselves into the cockpits...or is this just about money....i mean we have lots of sons and daughters, to offer our government....why should we arm them with the best money has to offer at this time....I had thought at one time that there was an unwritten code between the tax payer and the military volunteer....you fight and we'll pay for the equipment....now it's more than that it's all about the money.....our sons and daughters are worth 250 k....this is 9 bil we are talking about..... I can't wait until the navy contracts come up, 9 bil will be a warm up....a spit in the bucket...

And while it makes for interesting reading there is more to the Ucav story than what you post, firstly the US airforce is presueing this tech along with dozens of other projects, but as of today nothing has really appeared on the production side of the house....it would change air warfare forever, and whats that mean today, it would give the first nation to mass produce these aircraft a huge advantage....so i think the US although it's develpoing these aircraft types is no were close to mass production or it would have done so.... something else you've forgotten is the human element, currently a pilot has skin in the game , as his life is hanging in the balance , the same way as those on the ground that he supports....he is going to perform at a much greater skill level than say his counter part sitting in a sea container, controling his remote control aircraft while drinking and eating his timmies, And while UCAV do have some advantage over manned aircraft , being smaller aircraft, cheaper aircraft, able to perform higher G turns and dives....all these can be over come by a more skillfull pilot...one must also have control over everything that allows cummunication with these remote control planes....if the enemy jams or takes out Sats, what you now have is junk in the sky with no control...another hurdle to over come before introducing these UCAV's Some say you can have pre programed stikes already programed in....thats all good until your target moves, or perhaps becomes flooded with civilians, or the thousands of other murphies laws takes effect....now you have a wpns sys that you can not control... Ever new airframe that was introduced has gone through teething problems including the F-18....those same problems are going to effect your UCAV....

I'm sure by the time this aircraft reaches production stages , they would have worked out these problems, seeing how landing in heavy cross winds in artic conditions would be a very important US concern as well....

For a guy who has quoted he is well aware of Canada's military history, because his grandfather, father, and brother has served in the military . You seem like you lack some very basic knowledge about our Nations defense dept. Was Canada in Germany, yes it was, in fact we pulled out of Germany in 1992, as a cost savings measure....i'll let you do the math on how long we were there for. Did we have an occupation zone, no we were part of the British zone, and during the course of our stay we filled in were needed. Cyprus was a peacekeeping mission/ nation building that lasted over 25 years, and is still ongoing...as for Yugo it as well was a peacekeeping,peacemaking/nation building mission, that canada was involved in for more than 20 years....it to is still ongoing....my piont is nation building is not a quick process, it requires generations to complete..... Sorry, but were do you get your facts from, re check your facts and you'll find Canada just in the last 10 years or so went from a heavy mech force, to a middle wieght force , mostly do to the fact it was cheaper to maintain.... As for the disallision , why is it that our military forces are in such demand, from other nations around the globe when a new mission comes around....or a postion opens up on an old one...your lack of knowledge about our forces is really starting to show... No this is a huge what if...Had Afghanistan not come along and our true military status not been uncovered DND would have continued on its course, which was to be a source of funding for other depts and governmental ideas... Really, you do know that DND does not have access to unlimited funds, your also aware that DND has given our government a shopping list of some 150 bil worth of equipment , which is to replace old equipemnt or update our existing capabilities.... Your also aware that the defense of Canada is not the only tasking given to DND, there is SAR, Domestic operations, global humanitarian assistance, etc etc...each with their own needs and wants...I'm just curious if you gave GM,Ford, and the rest of the car makers the same advice,and what did they do with it.... Canada's current military size is what it is, it is what Canadians want, not what is required....want to change that then work towards that goal...instead of dreaming about tanks that fall from the sky.... Heres a statement that i found confusing, i'll use a few quotes from this post to see if you can see it yourself...So much for human rights....so much for anything lets just nuc them let god sort them out.... No what you believe in is sticking your head in the sand , hoping the problem will go away...but it's not...and by acting you and this nation can do that....beats doing nothing hoping they can change their own problems even if it costs them millions in dead people.... Oh please lets get the Wam bulance out....Code red, code red....you would not know what freedoms you have if they bite you in the ass....try living in a country that has no freedoms at all...none....nobody is forcing you to stay here in Canada, pack your bags, in my opinion you should plan a trip over to Afghan , yes they still have a tourist industry, and yes they still accept Canadian passports....you can stay as long as you like....see what freedoms they have, then when you return let me know how you made out, you can tell us all how lucky we are , to live in a country with so many freedoms...but who knows maybe you'll like it over there and stay...

While the growler is a very nice airframe, it is a varient of the F18 E and F model.....it is also as BC mentioned 10 to 15 years old with the early models already being looked at for a mid life rebuild or retrofit alrady or very soon.......Canada as a nation can not afford to purchase an airplane every 10 to 15 years....because once we purchase them our mid life will be at the end of this aircrafts life....R&D projects would have their funding going into something else......and 30 years from now do you think they will still be flying these aircraft.....E&F will be long retired, and they will be looking at something new to replace the growler as well.... Where as the US airforce will still be flying some type of F-35 as it will be they're main airframe....just reference the F-15,16,18 for examples on how long the US flys each model of aircraft..... As for Unmanned aircraft, while todays tech gives us types that are good for recon, and surveil...nothing has even been put on the boards that can compete with manned aircraft, sure they will be working on it ....but nothing close to what we've seen in the movies....and Canada can not hedge those dollars thatt in 10 to 15 years from now that tech will be here....and we'll be able to afford it....or even want it.....

As much as i'd like to blame the media, most of this falls on our government, they should have continued to spell out the message they wanted Canadians to here, until everyone was reading off the same sheet of music. And they failed miserably. Just so we are clear, in Afghan there is Khandar city, which is were the main base is, which even when we first got there consisted of over 15,000 troops from over 20 different nations, today that same base houses over 35,000 coalition troops....is home to a major airbase, helo port, support elements,and different battle groups of ground troops..... Khandar is also the name of the ditrict in which is the Canadian area of operations, an area larger than PEI, and we share patroling of it with the Dutch, and other smaller contingents.....that being said we also had some of the british AO in the Hemland district..... I mention that because i get the impresion that everyone thinks it's just the Canadians in Khandar , not true our 3300 troops share the base with over 32.000 other troops....and when the media talks about khandar it's not just the city it's the district.... There is the rub, one advantage of not playing by the rules or conventions, is they can sneak into town during the night, kill a few locals make death threats and leave that same night....continue this every couple of weeks and soon you have the locals scare stiff....Since NATO does not have enough troops to accomplish this or establish Camps, for protection the bad guys had free reign....remember our Battle group was only 2200 troops, and had to patrol the area the size of PEI.... with the Surge as you put it, NATO has been building more and more camps providing the protection the citizens need....allowing them more freedom to pass on info on were to find these guys....and to destroy them....It's not that the people don't want to help or provide us with the intel, it's their lifes that are at stake...and trust me we'd all do anything we could to protect our families.....and i do mean anything....Blaming them is not the answer either...as furstrating as that is...it's a Taliban tactic and it works....Fear is a very powerful motivator....one that we can't use...except on the bad guys...

I think most people are forgetting alot of the most important facts that need to be taken into account. 1. The current F-18 we purchased in 1983, historically we purchase a new airframe every 30 or so years.....which tells us alot, it tells us that what every airframe we agree to buy, needs to have 30 or more years of potential , growth,....that should be the first question on any type we look at "where is this aircraft going to be in 30 years time"........Is it going to be flying with most NATO countries if it is not then R&D on that airframe is going to be flat, and come time for it's mid life upgrade there won't be enough interest or new upgrades to make.....So The manufacture needs to still be in business, and someone out there still has to be flying these types....so there is still a healthy parts supply and , R&D on that type still needs to be ongoing.... Believe or not we went through the same auguments when we purchased the F-18, when the market was flooded with new aircraft the US was already flying , most were having problems, the F-14, 15, 16 and 18 today all of them have proven to be on the top of their game, but each had massive teething problems when first introduced.... Currently the F-18E /F is a fantastic Aircraft, but where will it be in 30 to 40 years, where will it be in 20 years when we are looking at a mid life rebuild......will it be still be considered a front line fighter.....

ESQ: How long we were in Germany, Cyprus, Yugo, again, Maybe you should check your history once more....As for Canada having the ability to take the fight to the enemy, i think you should check on Canada's military TO&E even up into the late 50's...it might surprise you. 4 th largest navy in the world, which included Aircraft Carriers, and Amb landing craft, and an airforce, and army to match.... Everything that DND has purchased to date has got AFGHAN written all over it...how much extra funding do you really think DND would have recieved if it had not been engaged in a conflict.... Canada's military force struture now has that capability built into it, it may not be large but it is capable of kicking in the door, and sustaining a small force.... The germans may have been fighting a small insurgency in reagrds to partisans, but the allieds, no sir, they knew exactly who was the bad guys and who was not.... Maybe it is that you don't understand just how difficult insurgent warfare is, or can be...when the enemy is not clearly indentifiable or does not conform to the Genva conventions they have a huge advantage....one that is not insurmountable but it does take more time and effort to defeat. Really, now thats BS, our entire country is built around fast food and fast results, and expected nothing less with this operation. DND has been foreth coming since the start of this operation, it told the Government from day one it was a bad idea, and it would be a protracted campaign....but it decided to go anyways...you need to see our liberal leadership on that reason.... Thats not waht i said at all, i said IN insurgent warfare a few bad guys could tie up a few thousand troops .....at no time did i say we are not ineffective, in fact the exact opposite is true....we are very effective, I'm not sure what your using to keep score, or measure success by the sound of it , and in your opinion it is by the amount of time we are deployed in the field.....but what your failing to see is what we are doing in that time, rebuilding a nation takes decades, Germany/Japan did not just over night become a success it is today, Afghanistan is troubled by the fact there is terrorist numbering in the thousands that are determined the country reverts back to the stone ages.....and while all this is going on you can not tell me that the country is not moving forward and making progress... You'll have to excuse me if i thought you were not attacking the honor of the forces, and the men and women who served there, but the tone and direction of your posts are hitting the wrong targets....99.9% percent of those Canadain soldiers involved in the Afghanistan conflict have conducted themselfs as world class warriors who have brought peace were there was none, and brought law and order were none existed, they have left a legacy that any Canadian sitizen should be proud of...and for the most part they've done it with out the majority of Canadians support.... So you have to excuse me when the hairs in the back of my neck go up, when i hear of someone complaining about what is or what is not going on in Afghanistan. Country is full of critics, but short on volunteers....And while i do have issues with how our government has handled this entire mission, how our most of our media reported on it from behind the wire, and how critical canadians became when straved of the truth...but i don't understand how any of that could be pinned on our soldiers backs of responsibility....we have carryied out every tasking, every mission, with huge successes, we've gone above and beyond what any military force has been asked, picked up other depts slack, and even filled in on the diplomatic side as well....Afghanistan problems has some how translated into give it to the army....and we've done them all...most of which are models today for the entire NATO contingent.... In my books that not barking out a bats ass, thats just fact, recorded fact thats in the history books. Your right, we both have an opinion, and from where your sitting i'm part of the green machine, a tool, a pawn spewing propaganda....only difference being is i've been there, i've lived through the very topics we are engaged with i've seen government policy in action, i've seen the lack of policy as well, i've also seen the media briefs in person, then read the stories the next day in the press....not even close my friend.....So your as much as part of that machine as i am,maybe one day we'll all sit down and agree to meet in the middle.... So i do understand your furstrations, i do, i've got tones of them myself, some of them are pionted towards Canadian citizens....but we all learn to live with our ghosts.... Are you f88king kidding me an embarsement, because we can't find one bearded guy named bin ladin, you are aware of the current geo polictics of the area, your aware Pakistan is off limits, and thats were these guys go and hide until fatten up to fight the next season....kind of like willy coyote and the sheep dog .....you think we made those rules...that the military wrote our rules of engagement... You can call it what ever you want, all i know is when i left the camp my wpns were loaded with a full war load, and when i returned to camp, they were empty most of the time....that those comrads shot, blown up, were still dead as shit....and those bad guys didn't fair out as well as we did even on thier best day.....as for the rose tinted glasses, well they quickly tarished after around my 3 day of combat, and hav;nt been rose colored for some time now....no this mission is more than some bearded prick hiding out in Pakistan, it's more than allowing little girls go to school, the reason that most Canadian soldier keep coming back is the people....it's about basic human rights, it's about giving some men and women that have suffered through 30 plus years of war alittle taste of peace, to give them some hope that thier children will not have to live throught that....and if that means i've got to kill a few bearded pricks, bleed over some rocks , and hand them over some of our tax dollars then so be it....I think the end justifies the means ....at the end of the day what did it cost you....i think we have already worked this out, each tax payer approx 20 dollars a year.....Shit i give more than that to the MADD, which gives out less results... I dont' post on here looking for pats on the back, or for someone to buy me a beer, or pump sun shine up my ass....i post here to correct some of the myths and misunderstandings about our military and the Afghan war...hence why i replied to your post....as it is full of both.... Like i've said it's your opinion, and it's your right to whine and bitch about something that you dislike, and like your self i also have those rights , i also have an opinion, unlike yours i think we as a nation have alot to offer Afghanistan, we life in a nation of plenty, and it costs us very little to bring about change in a nation that really needs it....if thats an error then your moral values are different than mine....if it is un honourable to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough then yes i'm unhonourable.... All war is lacking honour, glory,morals and justice it is the very nature of the beast, something man has come very accustomed to and very good at....thinking this one would be any different tells alot about those whine about it.....But we are not talking about the men and women who have answered this nations call, and stood the line and carried out the mission that once had the majority of approval amongs't Canadians....no you sir, have a bone to grind with our leadership of this nation....and yet include in your slag those soldiers for doing a job that our government and Canadians wanted them to do....

Thats a misunderstanding, Khanadar had a very large contingent of troops before we arrived, Dutch, Americans, and other assorted troops far outnumbered Canada's contribution, today those numbers are roughly around 35,000 troops that share the same base....And while Pres Obama did re-inforce the area with addtional troops, there was already more americans than Canadians in Khanadar....Those extra 5000 were split between our area of operations and the British Area in the Hemland district. That is not what we have been briefed, the mission according to DND sources is still a Basic training Mission...however the exact location has not been chosen, because most of the established bases are full to capacity, no room for a training school and it's support staff, which means re supply will have to be done by road, as any other unit in Afghanistan.... Perhaps the misunderstanding is our current mission includes a combat battle group, a PRT (reconstruction team), and an Omlet which is an advanced training codray taking the Afghanis soldiers into Combat....3 missions roled into one... No initially our role was a combat role in Khanadar actually with the PPCLI battle group under American control.....it was this mission that wouls set the tone for previous missions. Canadians were assigned a role around Kabul not training but patroling around and trough the city...we replaced the Germans there as they pushed further north due to their caveats in place, in other words it got to warm their for them...and they left, we were the new kids, so we got slotted in .... Depending who you talk to your right Canada did stick up it's hand for the south, and we have lost alot of good men, but no more than any other fighting contingent, and a hell of alot less than we expected, I dont beleive that for a minute, Canadian intel is as good or better than most on the ground, DND knew exactly what was going on, and what it faced before getting into anything....It's all spelled out in serveral books, like i said depends which one you read, but they all have something in common it was not a con, they all went in eyes wide open..... It's never been about competion,it's about respect, when the shit hits the fan, and you here over the radio that the Canadians are rolling up on your postion, that news should be one of relief, not Shit not those guys again .....and we've accomplished that, to the piont were we have been requested... And it's all not about letting our fallen comrads down, finishing what they started, and could not complete, but also our allieds we owe them as well, our government decided to take on this role and now are up and leaving, that may work in governmental etho's but does not sit well with a soldier...then there is the Afghanis civilians, the same ones that we seen grow for the last 10 years, in doing our job it's is sometimes hard not to make promises....those promises will never be kept now.... Trust me we'd love to come home , but the jobs not done yet...and we've never walked out on any mission before...well until now...

The reputation i was talking about was our ability to take the fight to the enemy , one that we had lost during the last 30 years or so.... How many troops did it take to do that...and where they fighting an insurgency This is what insurgent warfare is all about, it only takes a few to tie up thousands...but then again your an expert... No this is your opinion, one based on what exactly i don't know, perhaps you can explain....As for me i've done 3 tours in Afghan, and seen more than my share of Combat, Canadian soldiers have earned their reputation as some of the best fighting forces in the world, they've earned that through their blood, sweat, and tears....we've over come any and all obsticles put in our way, and for the most part we done it ourselfs.....I'm not asking you to take my word for it, do some research find out what our reputation is like, find out WTF your talking about ....goggle is a wonderful thing....

The current size of the Kanadar base is est at over 35,000 combat troops, and it is subjected to all the above, on a regualr bases , i mean it is a war zone.... The sercurity elements have already been established with 3 VP new TOE.... Lying, or perhaps he thought all of us would already know that being in a combat zone is dangerous and there is no garentees that Canadian soldiers will not find themselfs engaged with the enemy, regardless of what precautions we put in place....want garentees, train them in ontario....perhaps asking Canadians to have some common sense is asking to much....

Who said that, it is and remains as of today a BASIC TRAINING mission only, Once those afghanis soldiers are trained up to basic training standards they will be passed on to another nations to complete advanced training.....Part of Canada's Current mission is the advance training done outside the wire it will cease once this mission begins. Canada military forces has been sitting on the sidelines since korea, Our nation has decided to take a different approach to military matters concentrating on peacekeeping because it was cheaper, and provided votes. some how it is more exceptable to have a soldier killed in a peacekeeping mission than it is in combat. even with that said Canada's government place very limited caveats on what we could do or could not do. made very edvident during the balken conflict, where we had a reputation of CANBAT 1 and CAN BAT 2 or as our allieds used to call us CAN DON"T 1 and CAN DON'T 2. Something Canadian soldiers were very egar to change...that came with the combat mission to Afghanistan.....A mission were our government had released all those caveats and restraints and let us do what we were paid to do...close with and destroy the enemy... Canadians soldiers have spent alot time rebuilding our reputation as top grade professional soldiers, of the quality that our nation once seen at Vimy Ridge or the beaches of Normandy........And we don't want to undo that with an early withdrawal from a conflict not yet done. Canadians soon forget that this conflict is not over, and that Canada signed up to be a part of a larger coalition and the mission is not yet done....and in the eyes of alot of Canadian soldiers we are letting our allieds down by switching roles,taking the easier road instead of keeping with our current role and mission.

The government assigned DND the mission, and DND will carry it out, be it from tents or trenches we've done it before i don't see what the problem is. The government news release said in the Kabul area, that does not mean downtown, it means in and around kabul....Estasblishing a camp takes time and like any other camp we have established it will grow with time to have infra struture more condusive of a training establishment. Your getting confused, PPCLI may be light in name but they are well adapted to the heavy role , in fact for this mission there ORBAT will be adjusted again, this time they will be heavy on Mcpl's and Sr Ncos these troops will be do the teaching as it has been done for years....And while it may sound like it has just been switched up it is a totally new unit, formed for this tasking...Along with the instructors there still is a need for support, and for comabt troops for protection....after all it is afghanistan, not toronto.... Like i said before the officers really have a small role to play in training it will be the Mcpl and Above that will be the core instructors, # VP will have it's TOE redone it will not look like it's traditional combat BN...Every Mcpl and above has been instructed how to teach, it is how we train our army....as for how many are going to be teaching i'd say about 1/2 the reat will be support , protection, and Admin... The school is behind the wire, but ammo, supplies , and equipment don't fall from the sky, and unless the school is built around a major air head, they will still need to travel to get resupplied...

And while the exact location may not have been chosen just yet, as most of the already established camps are full to capacity, that does not mean the mission is scrubed , it would not be the first time Canada has been handed a piece of ground and been told to construct it's own camp from the ground up, it was done when we first went into Kabul, then Kanadar. troops slept, and lived in holes, and under small 4 man recce tents. The mission is still a go, in fact the first units to go over are preparing now. The New mission is to teach Basic training to the Afghan army, you don't have to go outside the wire for that, it's the advanced training that is outside the wire....all that being said, it is still Afghan and one still has to re supply which means convoys... which means outside the wire...for some...

I think if we looked at it from their piont of view it's them have been carrying most of the load when it comes to North American defense, and they have developoed an attitude that we simply don't care, and they know if they want to protect the entire continent they will have to do it by themselfs , with Canada playing a minior role. I mean how many times have i seen Canadians outwardly say it in threads, "nobody is going to attck North America, becuase the US is there" we don't need any defense.... The question then becomes when is it going to be right, 5 years, 10 years from now....these programs take 10 or more years to get spun up.... Airforce equpment tends to be more multi tasked, ie, C-17 C-130J etc etc tasks that Citizens can relate to, which means more political pionts earned when purchased....ie diaster relief, air shows, etc etc....kind of hard to show our citizens, army or navy stuff in action....I'm not a big fan of the Navy, but i will say if any element is getting the bone right now it's them....and i hope they get some equipment soon....as for the army we've been getting a big portion of the pie the last 5 years or so....but all of them really need some major investments....

Looking back historically the US has been a trusted defense partner, The CF has dozens of wpns systems that we have purchased from the US without any problem, Perhaps you can put some meat behind your remarks and fill us in. Norad , NATO and other defense related treaties and agreements would say different, i think your talking out your ass. As for Canada being treated as a equal perhaps the problem translates into how Canada itself looks at defense, and if we are not going to meet them atleast half way with funding and manning on mutual defense agreements then do you really think the US should treat us with equality....Canadians can't have the cake and eat it to.... Simply put most of our aircraft we've ever owned have been US made and designed,go figure, we tried the design your own and build it how did that work out. As for getting nothing in return read the contract one more time. Once again all those that oppose this purchase will never have to strap themselfs into any jet fighter and be asked to defend this country....if they did i'm sure they would be singing another tune... Maybe it's not stephen that needs to wake up , but perhaps Canadians and their attitude towards defense....if they are not willing to do it our selfs then the US is going to at the expense of some of our freedoms....