A Trust That is Now Broken

[Keepitsimple]

Trudeau promised and won with this particular promise as a key point on his platform. Disagree if you'd like. It obviously wasn't a big enough deal to the majority of Canadians.

It was a key point to pull NDP voters over - but a large majority of Canadians were not in favour of pulling the jets - including many in the Liberal Party itself. He's already broken his promise by not immediately asking our military to pull the jets but it seems you're now saying if he bows to pressure and extends the mission......that perhaps his winning the election becomes at best, tainted...is that right?

[ReeferMadness]

The only criticism I ever heard of our foreign policy during Harper's time amounted to "We need to hate Jews more so the Muslims will like us."

Yeah, I agree that's what you heard. It wasn't what people said, it's just what you heard.

[G Huxley]

I believe your solution is to side with that supporter of international terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran rather than our traditional friend and ally, the United States.

Let's see a show of hands on that proposal...

The US is one of the biggest supporters of international terrorism in the world. Look who funded the mujahedeen in the 80s leading to the rise of Al Qaeda and Afghanistan, and look who has been backing the rebels which turned out to be Islamists in league with Al Qaeda in Syria? The good ol USA. And who backed the Islamists in Libya? That's right the USA.

Meanwhile Iran is actually fighting Al Qaeda in Syrian and Iraq, while America turns a blind eye to it.

[ReeferMadness]

Canada broke a trust with humanity decades ago when we let our friends drive drunk and knock off emerging democracies in favour of friendly dictators.

Trudeau is a flake alright. His ambiguity and wishy-washiness about whether we're in or out disgusts me and I actually think it's the bigger contributor to the slow motion disaster that's been unfolding the last 60 years in the ME region. Trudeau should pick up a phone and order the planes home...last week. Then he should cancel the the armoured car deal with S.A. declare neutrality and start sanctioning anyone who insists on shipping weapons and reasons to use them to failed regions around the world and especially the ME.

I can't disagree with anything you say but has there ever been a Canadian leader (federal or provincial) who rose to this standard?

[Smallc]

It was a key point to pull NDP voters over - but a large majority of Canadians were not in favour of pulling the jets - including many in the Liberal Party itself. He's already broken his promise by not immediately asking our military to pull the jets but it seems you're now saying if he bows to pressure and extends the mission......that perhaps his winning the election becomes at best, tainted...is that right?

I don't want him to pull the jets. I understand that it was a promise at the same time. I'm a fan of the responsible approach that gives our allies one to adapt.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't want him to pull the jets. I understand that it was a promise at the same time. I'm a fan of the responsible approach that gives our allies one to adapt.

What does that mean "......that gives our allies one to adapt"? You said "Trudeau promised and won with this particular promise as a key point on his platform.". As I said - doesn't that mean his "win" would be at best, tainted - if he goes back on his promise? I agree it would be the right thing to do - but it would also lay bare the fact that it was a politically calculated ruse from the start - done with nothing in mind but to woo NDP voters.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Keepitsimple

[Derek 2.0]

British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon says Canada 'absolutely not' snubbed at ISIS meeting

Then why wasn't Canada invited?

[G Huxley]

How did I even forget to mention Iran-Contra? haha

[Smallc]

Then why wasn't Canada invited?

There are rumours circling that Canada asked not to be invited.

[Smallc]

What does that mean "......that gives our allies one to adapt"? You said "Trudeau promised and won with this particular promise as a key point on his platform.". As I said - doesn't that mean his "win" would be at best, tainted - if he goes back on his promise? I agree it would be the right thing to do - but it would also lay bare the fact that it was a politically calculated ruse from the start - done with nothing in mind but to woo NDP voters.

I expect the promise will be kept. I don't expect it to happen with haste.

[Derek 2.0]

The problem with our Sea Kings is their age. Ours are very early models which went into service only two years after the USN started operating them. The USN retired theirs in the 90's except for some reserve units which operated them till 2006.

It really is apples to oranges comparing RCN/RCAF Sea King service to that of the USN though, as the Americans were still procuring Sea Kings into the 1970s, then had extensive attrition reserves with the retirements of their ASW carrier groups, and what remained operated from big deck carriers, support ships and land bases.......and had far less cumulative hours then ours, well receiving extensive rebuilds in the mid 1970s and then again in the later 90s .........none the less, Chretien still quipped as justification that if the Sea King was good enough for the Presidential flight, it was good enough for us.....and just over five months after he was sworn into office, we had yet another fatal Sea King crash.

As noted early, there is a stark contrast between good public policy and electioneering, a theme this new Government seems to have embraced.....likewise the willingness to over promise and under deliver.

[waldo]

Then why wasn't Canada invited?

following your lead: then why would the British Defence Secretary undercut your premise?

indirectly... I expect it reflects on the ever controlling U.S. attempt to further manipulate coalition members into helping the U.S. clean up its own shyte: U.S. Secretary of Defence Ash Carter stated: "I will not hesitate to engage and challenge current and prospective members of the coalition to do more as we go forward"

[Derek 2.0]

following your lead: then why would the British Defence Secretary undercut your premise?

Political niceties?

indirectly... I expect it reflects on the ever controlling U.S. attempt to further manipulate coalition members into helping the U.S. clean up its own shyte: U.S. Secretary of Defence Ash Carter stated: "I will not hesitate to engage and challenge current and prospective members of the coalition to do more as we go forward"

Right, and I assumed Carter's speech was indirectly speaking to Canada (and others).......none the less, it doesn't explain why we weren't invited. Australia has stated they won't increase their current commitment, a commitment of the same scope as our current one. The Germans were invited, but unlike us currently, aren't partaking in airstrikes. Italy only increased its commitment (of ground troops) after the Paris attacks, which would align with the Trudeau's stated desire to increase Canada's presence on the ground.........

So what gives?

[bush_cheney2004]

It really is apples to oranges comparing RCN/RCAF Sea King service to that of the USN though,

True, but such silly comparisons are often made in the wild and wacky world of Canadian defence procurement policies (see F-35 topics). Comparing Canada to the United States always works in its domestic political fantasy land. The USN/USAF had/has far more rotary wing aircraft platforms than Canada. USN ASW and utility roles were also supported by Kaman SH2 Seasprites concurrent with Sea Kings.

This point plays well into the jist of this topic, mainly that Canada's current ruling party can't be "trusted" in these matters and many others...going back decades. That's why Canada had to get Chinooks back in a hurry after stupid, short term decisions to please politicians and bean counters.

[ReeferMadness]

There are rumours circling that Canada asked not to be invited.

It was our turn to bring the chips and dip; and there's no budget for it.

[Wilber]

It really is apples to oranges comparing RCN/RCAF Sea King service to that of the USN though, as the Americans were still procuring Sea Kings into the 1970s, then had extensive attrition reserves with the retirements of their ASW carrier groups, and what remained operated from big deck carriers, support ships and land bases.......and had far less cumulative hours then ours, well receiving extensive rebuilds in the mid 1970s and then again in the later 90s .........none the less, Chretien still quipped as justification that if the Sea King was good enough for the Presidential flight, it was good enough for us.....and just over five months after he was sworn into office, we had yet another fatal Sea King crash.

As noted early, there is a stark contrast between good public policy and electioneering, a theme this new Government seems to have embraced.....likewise the willingness to over promise and under deliver.

I disagree, if our Sea Kings can be compared with any others, it would be with the early machines built for the USN, not machines built much later that the apologists love to point at. I bet the President's Sea King that Chretien loved point at was built much later than ours and never saw the deck of a ship. Westland was still building Sea King variants for the RN and RAF well into the 90's. Ours went into service in 1963, that's 53 years ago by my account. 8 years before JT was even born.

[Smallc]

They're about as old as the B-52. No one would ever fly those.

The issues, more than anything, is getting parts. The issue is also new avionics and technology. It's too bad our new helicopters are taking so long (12 years now)

Edited January 22, 2016 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

They're about as old as the B-52. No one would ever fly those.

The issues, more than anything, is getting parts. The issue is also new avionics and technology. It's too bad our new helicopters are taking so long (12 years now)

That's because the procurement process is broken....just like the "trust". Cancellation fees are the norm.

[Smallc]

That's because the procurement process is broken....just like the "trust". Cancellation fees are the norm.

Cancellations fees certainly aren't the norm - but you're right, the system is broken, unlike the 'trust'.

[Derek 2.0]

I disagree, if our Sea Kings can be compared with any others, it would be with the early machines built for the USN, not machines built much later that the apologists love to point at.

Do you? The USN Sea Kings procured in the early 1960s (when ours were procured) were in the desert, sold off as FMS or used as parts sources for the SH-3H fleet by the later 70s, at such a point as to when we started looking towards a replacement (alongside the European users) that became the EH-101..........hence apples to oranges.

I bet the President's Sea King that Chretien loved point at was built much later than ours and never saw the deck of a ship.

That's very true, the current Marine 1 Sea Kings were produced in the later 70s (to be replaced with the Cyclone/V-92 in the next several years) and spent their low usage careers transporting VIPs around greater Washington DC.......hence Chretien's quip was apples to oranges.

Westland was still building Sea King variants for the RN and RAF well into the 90's. Ours went into service in 1963, that's 53 years ago by my account. 8 years before JT was even born.

Again, supporting my apples to oranges point.......the few remaining RN FAA Sea Kings were procured in the 80s, when the EH-101 were underdevelopment........

All examples that offer a factual contrast to the Chretien quip used to support bad public policy........The current Prime Minister is fond of off-the-cuff quips to support his illogical justifications of his confused policies..........

[Wilber]

They're about as old as the B-52. No one would ever fly those.

The issues, more than anything, is getting parts. The issue is also new avionics and technology. It's too bad our new helicopters are taking so long (12 years now)

On;y the last B52-H models which first went into service in 1961 are still flying. You can't compare the two. The B52 is a high altitude, long range aircraft operating in a dry environment which means high hours but low cycles, resulting on much less stress on airframes and engines. The Sea King is a low altitude, high cycle aircraft operating in a high vibration, corrosive salt environment.

As my helicopter instructor at BCIT once said, helicopter maintenance is putting them back together faster than they shake themselves to pieces.

[bush_cheney2004]

Cancellations fees certainly aren't the norm - but you're right, the system is broken, unlike the 'trust'.

It's the same disease....wishy washy, aimless policies subject to change at political whim. Trust is more than just the will, but also the means to do something in concert with other allies without so many limitations and excuses.

[Wilber]

Do you? The USN Sea Kings procured in the early 1960s (when ours were procured) were in the desert, sold off as FMS or used as parts sources for the SH-3H fleet by the later 70s, at such a point as to when we started looking towards a replacement (alongside the European users) that became the EH-101..........hence apples to oranges.

Yes I do. I think we are singing from the same sheet here. I'm saying we have to compare our Sea Kings to the early USN machines because they went into service around the same time. What isn't the same is their fate. The USN parked their early machines around 20 years ago, ours are still flying.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Wilber

[Derek 2.0]

They're about as old as the B-52. No one would ever fly those.

Apples to Bananas.........the currently serving B-52H fleet has a cumulative usage of 18000-20000 hours on each aircraft, the average rate of usage of any given aircraft used by an airline for over 10 years...........the limiting factor of the B-52H life will be its wing's leading edges, which a conservative estimate will see them going around ~38000-40000 hours, or 2040-2050, unless replaced........

The issues, more than anything, is getting parts. The issue is also new avionics and technology. It's too bad our new helicopters are taking so long (12 years now)

No, there is a desert full of parts, the limiting factor is metal fatigue..........

Again, a result of politics put before good public policy.......such is the case of the current Government's policy on fighting radical Islam.

[Derek 2.0]

On;y the last B52-H models which first went into service in 1961 are still flying. You can't compare the two. The B52 is a high altitude, long range aircraft operating in a dry environment which means high hours but low cycles, resulting on much less stress on airframes and engines.

Actually they don't have high hours......the average 737 in any given airline has equal/greater hours then the current B-52 fleet. Furthermore, the "H" was (re)designed for low level flight (Unlike the previous B-52s), but the USAF altered their low level strike doctrine in the later 80s and early 90s to high level stand-off missions, which extended their usage even further........

Their continued use is an example of good public policy, since they can still perform their required missions, and have outlived two of their planned replacements, and will likely outlive the B-1 and possibly the B-2.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Derek 2.0