C-17's

[Topaz]

Does anyone know if we have a WARRANTY on those billion dollar planes Canada bought, since they appear to a "lemon" kind of plane. Out of the 4, 3 are out of commission and we had to rent a Russian plane to deliver supplies to the earthquake victims, at a cost of 1 Mil.

[Wild Bill]

Does anyone know if we have a WARRANTY on those billion dollar planes Canada bought, since they appear to a "lemon" kind of plane. Out of the 4, 3 are out of commission and we had to rent a Russian plane to deliver supplies to the earthquake victims, at a cost of 1 Mil.

can you give a link or two? My understanding was that they had not even been delivered yet! The problem was that the minister promised the aid without checking if we actually had the planes...

If this is true it's obviously wrong to say something is wrong with a plane we've never flown...

[Borg]

Does anyone know if we have a WARRANTY on those billion dollar planes Canada bought, since they appear to a "lemon" kind of plane. Out of the 4, 3 are out of commission and we had to rent a Russian plane to deliver supplies to the earthquake victims, at a cost of 1 Mil.

Yes there is warranty.

Airplanes are not like cars - they need parts and service on a regular basis.

They may be down today (I do not know - just taking you at your word), but they will be back up soon.

From all reports they are a dream to fly and spend the very vast majority of their time in the air.

As for renting Antanovs and such - this is on going and will be for some time.

As members of NATO and the UN we have obligations we are not able to fill with our still very limited fleet capability.

Stand by for far more renting in the future - that is unless you write and ask your MP to increase the military budget yet again.

Do not depair and do not rant and rail - those aircraft are doing a good job. The big - no huge - limiting factor is PILOTS!!

The canadian military is drastically and dangerously short of them - they are departing faster than they can be trained and replaced.

At last report the military is short some 300 pilots and that number will be increasing. The airlines are calling. And not just the canadian airlines - the international community loves canadian pilots and is willing to pay them nearly twice what they are making in the military. Once having served their mandatory time they are looking further afield. Cannot say that I blame them.

Borg

[Borg]

can you give a link or two? My understanding was that they had not even been delivered yet! The problem was that the minister promised the aid without checking if we actually had the planes...

If this is true it's obviously wrong to say something is wrong with a plane we've never flown...

We have completed all deliveries - an old friend is flying them out of Trenton.

We own four.

Borg

[eyeball]

At last report the military is short some 300 pilots and that number will be increasing. The airlines are calling. And not just the canadian airlines - the international community loves canadian pilots and is willing to pay them nearly twice what they are making in the military. Once having served their mandatory time they are looking further afield. Cannot say that I blame them.

Borg

This is a good argument for conscription or longer mandatory service times. It seems the least that taxpayers should expect is that the pilots they paid for should serve enough time to have it made worth the investment otherwise we should send them a bill for the 'free' education they just received.

I'll leave the politically messy alternative of suggesting higher wages to compete with airlines to someone else. I'm demanding a personal tax break myself so don't come knocking on my door.

[bush_cheney2004]

We have completed all deliveries - an old friend is flying them out of Trenton.

We own four.

Yes...the fourth CC-177 was delivered at Long Beach, California in early April.

"The CC-177 continues to exceed our expectations in every way: In performance, capabilities, reliability and durability," said Major General Marcel Duval, commander of 1 Canadian Air Division, Winnipeg.

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/...-delivered.html

Pretty pictures and customers go gaga:

http://www.aviationearth.com/aircraftdata/globemaster.html

Edited May 25, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Borg]

This is a good argument for conscription or longer mandatory service times. It seems the least that taxpayers should expect is that the pilots they paid for should serve enough time to have it made worth the investment otherwise we should send them a bill for the 'free' education they just received.

I'll leave the politically messy alternative of suggesting higher wages to compete with airlines to someone else. I'm demanding a personal tax break myself so don't come knocking on my door.

Mandatory service times have been increased and time to serve until pensionable have been increased - however it is necessary to get beyond the very large bubble of those under the old plan who will step out with a minimum pension at 20 years of service.

Free education? When I drove Hornets I was away from home an average of more than 200 days a year for the first 5 years on the job. My own kids ran from me when I came home in the third year - did not know me.

Stepped into more than one smoking hole to pick up body parts and even did this while holding a bunch of environmentalists at bay in Inuvik many years ago - pretty good guy went in that day.

Have two holes in my body from not so friendly people who decided my skin colour and my religion were defining factors - I was on a ground job in a hot country - wearing a blue beanie - gotta' love peace keeping - it is a f**king bastard until the peace making is complete and in the bag.

Most canuckleheads are too smug to know this though - they have a romantic view of the wearers of the blue beamie.

Managed to save a few folks lives on the west coast as a SAR pilot - I think they consider my education paid in full as well.

Yup my education was free - and I use it for many things - including taking a lot of money from people for my services. Even my internet sites pay off. Oleg does not like me for my capitalistic ways. But after doing my time I figure it is time to do it to others - so I make money - lots.

Back to the story - The old plan will affect the military for another 18 or so years if my calculations are correct.

There is a time at around the 12 year mark where the decision to stay or go must be made - with international demand high for aircrew - many chose to leave - and I do not blame them - to get promoted you need the following:

1. Speak french

2. University degree

3. Staff school

4. Staff college

5. Operational tours

...... and much, much more.

All the above mean time from family and placing the body at risk - for pay that is not close to reality and availablity. If you make $xx and are offered $XXXXX for the same job, better benefits and less risk plus an improved lifestyle - what would you do? Heck, recruiters are having a tough time getting certain trades in the door for a reason. Kids are a lot smarter today about things like this.

The people who can get out without a penalty to their pension and step into a 6 plus figure salary are the ones with the experience and the leadership - this will hurt the military big time and is a serious topic of discussion at all levels.

Conscription? You ready to go? They will take you at almost any age as long as you are fit (if memory serves) - new rules under the charter - and you can stay until age 60.

I can just see the reaction from Joe and Mary, Smith / Jacques / Abdhulla / Mohammed / Mohican etc when they get their conscription notices. I suspect it would not go over well. This government would never do this - nor would those bast**d libs - it would cost them their jobs.

Hey, have a good one,

Borg

[WarBicycle]

In addition to the above, very few pilots make it past the rank of captain, it's understandable if they get out for more money.

Edited May 26, 2008 by WarBicycle

[Wild Bill]

Managed to save a few folks lives on the west coast as a SAR pilot - I think they consider my education paid in full as well.

Yup my education was free - and I use it for many things - including taking a lot of money from people for my services. Even my internet sites pay off. Oleg does not like me for my capitalistic ways. But after doing my time I figure it is time to do it to others - so I make money - lots.

Borg

By my yardstick we still owe you! If you're ever in my part of the woods remind me that I owe you a couple of beer!

I think my Dad would forgive me, even though he was Navy...

[Army Guy]

The only mistake we made purchasing the C-17 was not buying more, the link below reports 2 of the aircraft are being upgraded, the other 2 are already tasked, it was Mr Bernier that volunteered thier services without checking out all the facts, and to keep his promise we are now renting....

C-17

This is a good argument for conscription or longer mandatory service times. It seems the least that taxpayers should expect is that the pilots they paid for should serve enough time to have it made worth the investment otherwise we should send them a bill for the 'free' education they just received.

Conscription ya, just what we needed, although the thought of torturing the shit out of the likes of eyeball does have appeal, it would only delute the quality of service members. NO thanks, last thing i want is some tree hugger/ whinner, hanging off my pant leg whinning about why he can't go over the top, to close with and destroy the enemy...NO leave the heavy work for those that want to serve, for those that are up to the challange, for those that believe in our country.

As for the tax payers not getting thier monies worth out of thier investment.....That is just crap...every soldier, sailor and airmen that has served one day on active duty has payed back "your" investment with interest.... be it patroling in Afgan, bobing up and down on the high seas, or performing SAR, or close air support in some forgotten country....Your investment is paid in full, if anything is in arrears.....

[MontyBurns]

... NO thanks, last thing i want is some tree hugger/ whinner, hanging off my pant leg whinning about why he can't go over the top ...

Yeah. Those guys are useless.

[Peter F]

Yeah. Those guys are useless.

Actually, those guys do just fine under fire. Witness Australian conscripts at Long Tan or (obvoiusly) any American conscript in WWII or Vietnam.

Poor behaviour under fire is always the result of poor leadership and poor training.

Don't take the insults to heart eyeball. Its the usual Armed Forces "We're tougher than others" horseshit.

[DogOnPorch]

When I drove Hornets I was away from home an average of more than 200 days a year for the first 5 years on the job....etc.

Impressive, Borg. Some very interesting people on this forum.

---------------------------------------

The first lesson is that you can't lose a war if you have command of the air, and you can't win a war if you haven't.

---Jimmy Doolittle

[Army Guy]

Actually, those guys do just fine under fire. Witness Australian conscripts at Long Tan or (obvoiusly) any American conscript in WWII or Vietnam

.

Really, So what you are saying is that some guy with 13 weeks training then shipped to a war zone is going to perform just as well as some guy who has made this a profession....Come on...for every example of good conscription performance, i can give you a dozens of volunteer examples....doing just fine does not cut it in a combat zone..

There is more to the conscription debate than acting well under fire, hence why most western countries have switched to all volunteer forces....

conscription vs volunteer

Poor behaviour under fire is always the result of poor leadership and poor training

Even good training and good leadership, is not enough to make someone perform well in combat....it is everything to do with that individual's ability to overcome and control thier fears, that enables them to function correctly under stress...Can't teach that in a few weeks of training...

Don't take the insults to heart eyeball. Its the usual Armed Forces "We're tougher than others" horseshit.

Stop holding his hand, he's a big boy.....when he cast those that have served this country in a bad light then he should be able to back those statements up.... all he is worried about is is damn tax dollars, not those that have signed up to serve this country....

As for the "usual we're tougher than others" it's because we are, although it does not make us better than the rest of Canadians it does make us tougher.

[WarBicycle]

I've had the misfortune of having to work with Dutch conscripts while serving with NATO, the first, middle and morning watches on Dutch ships are manned mostly by conscripts while regular force members are either sleeping or drinking beer. Not only do the conscripts make lots of mistakes, most could care less because they’re only putting in time.

[Peter F]

.

Really, So what you are saying is that some guy with 13 weeks training then shipped to a war zone is going to perform just as well as some guy who has made this a profession....Come on...for every example of good conscription performance, i can give you a dozens of volunteer examples....doing just fine does not cut it in a combat zone..

Doing just fine in combat cuts it just fine. I took issue with your idea that conscripts would be cowering. That is a falsehood. Pleasant to

believe for the volounteer, certainly, but a falsehood nevertheless.

There is more to the conscription debate than acting well under fire, hence why most western countries have switched to all volunteer forces....

conscription vs volunteer

Yes, there is more to the debate than acting well under fire. I note your reference sticks to the only issue that counts in regards to conscription vs. volounteers: money. He completely ignores the concern of whining tree-huggers clutching onto your pantleg and pissing thiers...and for a very good reason. It doesn't happen.

Even good training and good leadership, is not enough to make someone perform well in combat....it is everything to do with that individual's ability to overcome and control thier fears, that enables them to function correctly under stress...Can't teach that in a few weeks of training...

Good training and Good leadership go a very long way though, even for conscripts. All other things being equal, a better trained and better led force will defeat the lesser. Conscripts or not.

Stop holding his hand, he's a big boy.....when he cast those that have served this country in a bad light then he should be able to back those statements up.... all he is worried about is is damn tax dollars, not those that have signed up to serve this country....

As for the "usual we're tougher than others" it's because we are, although it does not make us better than the rest of Canadians it does make us tougher.

But eyeball wasnt casting those who serve this country in a bad light. He was musing about Borg's statement. You see it was Borg who cast CAF pilots in (according to you) "a bad light" - not eyeball. So I felt he needed a hug. Phone a cop.

As far as toughness is concerned I know some badass MF'rs on a rig. Some more in a mine. A lot more in the Legion.

[Army Guy]

Doing just fine in combat cuts it just fine. I took issue with your idea that conscripts would be cowering. That is a falsehood. Pleasant to

believe for the volounteer, certainly, but a falsehood nevertheless.

You don't hire a plumber to do carpentry work do you, that is what conscription does, it takes individuals out of thier current occupations and places them in an unfamilar, highly stressful enviroment, with very little training. with one big motivation factor learn or die.....

Doing just fine in todays battlefield is not good enough, todays tech requires months and years of training. It's not as simple as picking up a rifle, and pionting it towards the enemy.

As for the falsehood, you call it what ever you want, i've seen a truck loads of civilian vistors in Afgan, most react the same way as soon as the shit hits the fan....and it's not good, and the only difference between them and a consript is 13 weeks of training....not enough for combat....

Yes, there is more to the debate than acting well under fire. I note your reference sticks to the only issue that counts in regards to conscription vs. volounteers: money. He completely ignores the concern of whining tree-huggers clutching onto your pantleg and pissing thiers...and for a very good reason. It doesn't happen.

Then you never read the entire article, below is a para that has nothing to do with monie....

A draft forces some of the wrong people into the military—people who are more productive in other jobs or who have a strong distaste for military service. That has other serious consequences for the country: the military and society are both weaker. Society is weaker because a draft inevitably causes wasteful avoidance behavior like the unwanted schooling, emigration, early marriages, and distorted career choices of the fifties and sixties. The military is weaker because the presence of unwilling conscripts increases turnover (conscripts reenlist at lower rates than volunteers), lowers morale, and causes discipline problems.

There is a major problem with conscription, displinary problems, low moral, not enough training, the list is endless, They just don't have enough time on the job , making them a liability to those that they serve with....

And for you to say it does not happen, i say bullshit, it happens more often than not, and not just to new conscripts, but to professionals as well...

Good training and Good leadership go a very long way though, even for conscripts. All other things being equal, a better trained and better led force will defeat the lesser. Conscripts or not.

Your comment says it all, who better trained than a professional soldier....lets face it a seasoned soldier is a better one there is no comparsion....

But eyeball wasnt casting those who serve this country in a bad light.

Bullshit....his only concern was his tax dollars were not worth the investment, and that they should serve longer periods of time to make it worth while....

As far as toughness is concerned I know some badass MF'rs on a rig. Some more in a mine. A lot more in the Legion

I did'nt say we had the monopoly on toughness.

[Wilber]

As far as toughness is concerned I know some badass MF'rs on a rig. Some more in a mine. A lot more in the Legion.

How many of them were conscripted?

[Peter F]

Bottom line, Army guy, is I agree with you; A volouteer army is better than a conscripted one for the reasons cited in the article you linked.

I like your point about training in a modern army. I agree with that too, 13 weeks doesnt cut it for a modern army.

I don't agree with eyeball that conscription is the answer to Air Force pilots being tempted out of the Armed Forces as Borg claims they are. Being concerned about Tax dollars isnt casting bad light on the Armed Forces.

[Peter F]

How many of them were conscripted?

None of them apparently. Except my uncle - but then he doesn't go on about how manly he is, so he would be a bad example.

[Army Guy]

Being concerned about Tax dollars isnt casting bad light on the Armed Forces.

Perhaps i was a little quick to respond, and with to much emotion..

[eyeball]

...all he is worried about is is damn tax dollars, not those that have signed up to serve this country....

Actually I'm more worried about making enemies where none previously existed.

[eyeball]

You don't hire a plumber to do carpentry work do you, that is what conscription does, it takes individuals out of thier current occupations and places them in an unfamilar, highly stressful enviroment, with very little training. with one big motivation factor learn or die.....

Doing just fine in todays battlefield is not good enough, todays tech requires months and years of training. It's not as simple as picking up a rifle, and pionting it towards the enemy.

As for the falsehood, you call it what ever you want, i've seen a truck loads of civilian vistors in Afgan, most react the same way as soon as the shit hits the fan....and it's not good, and the only difference between them and a consript is 13 weeks of training....not enough for combat....

Then you never read the entire article, below is a para that has nothing to do with monie....

There is a major problem with conscription, displinary problems, low moral, not enough training, the list is endless, They just don't have enough time on the job , making them a liability to those that they serve with....

And for you to say it does not happen, i say bullshit, it happens more often than not, and not just to new conscripts, but to professionals as well...

Your comment says it all, who better trained than a professional soldier....lets face it a seasoned soldier is a better one there is no comparsion....

Bullshit....his only concern was his tax dollars were not worth the investment, and that they should serve longer periods of time to make it worth while....

I did'nt say we had the monopoly on toughness.

Conscription would force our government to think twice before it tried to commit Canadians to its agenda. Volunteers on the other hand can't wait to go kill some so-called 'scumbag'.

[Wilber]

Conscription would force our government to think twice before it tried to commit Canadians to its agenda. Volunteers on the other hand can't wait to go kill some so-called 'scumbag'.

Would you call defending our country a government agenda? I should hope so. Why would it make a difference to a government whether the military was composed of conscripts or volunteers if we require a standing armed forces anyway? The military doesn't set the governments agenda. Much better to have people who have freely committed to what they are doing. Nothing worse than trying to work with a bunch of people who don't want to be there, no matter what you are doing.

The issue of conscription nearly tore this country apart during the world wars. Why would it be any different today?

Actually I'm more worried about making enemies where none previously existed.

Who says we will always be allowed to make that choice?

[M.Dancer]

Conscription would force our government to think twice before it tried to commit Canadians to its agenda. Volunteers on the other hand can't wait to go kill some so-called 'scumbag'.

That is not a plan to get things done, it's a scheme to do nothing and die trying. You would prefer hapless kids get killed over trained professionals doing their job.