Smallc Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Ask the Belgians. That's what I thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 And this isn't really true - all 3 branches have old equipment, but also very new equipment. The transport fleet, the frigate fleet, the modernized fighter fleet, the tank force, and now the LAV and light vehicle fleet are all very new. On the other hand, transport trucks, navy supply ships, and fwsar...enough said. But that isn't the whole story...capital investment for new procurements is much less than total life cycle maintenance, training, and deployment costs. The only time that perspective seems to garner any interest is when it is needed for political ammunition (pun intended) to use against the other side. Few wish to actually write the check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) That's what I thought. Oh, so in addition to another Oka there's no possibility of some kind of huge security operation that would require soldiers in the streets like the Belgians have had to use. It's so good you lefties can see the future so well. Edited June 17, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 ...Liberals still have a chance to correct all this dog breakfast....Have an open competition and finish this once and for all.... Yes...as it has gotten to the point where lack of resolve and action has become worse than the disease. What is so hard about getting something...anything...done on this "file" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Oh, so in addition to another Oka there's no possibility of some kind of huge security operation that would require soldiers in the streets like the Belgians have had to use. It's so good you lefties can see the future so well. When was Oka again? That situation could have been handled by the police anyway - that's why we have police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 And this isn't really true - all 3 branches have old equipment, but also very new equipment. The transport fleet, the frigate fleet, the modernized fighter fleet, the tank force, and now the LAV and light vehicle fleet are all very new. On the other hand, transport trucks, navy supply ships, and fwsar...enough said. By transport fleet I assume your talking about transport aircraft. And i'm assume you mean the two recent purchases of C-130J and C-17. The only thing the Cons did right....the rest of the fleet was purchased in the 90's or 80's....not so new..... Like the C-130H model purchased in (1996) which we have 9 C-130J Model Purchased in 2010 which we have 17 C-17 Model purchased in 2007 which we have 5 Airbus Purchased in 1992 Which we have 3 and 2 MRRT Challanger Purchased in 1982 Which we have 4 Frigate Since we only have one type of frigate, they are not new, they have been upgraded, but not new First ship laid down in 1987 and commissioned in 1992, with the last ship laid down in 1995 and commissioned 1996.... The CF-18 is not new , it was been upgraded on it's second upgrade but you can update anything it does not mean it's new or can compare with any modern fighter.... Tank force....Yes we purchased new to US tanks , most people call them used, but we purchased the Leo IIA4 to be honest Germany announced they will be upgrading their tanks force, to Leo IIA7Plus tanks...that's only 4 generations behind but not new....anything but new.... The new LAV veh....well it's not new either....they took our old LAV III cut the bottoms off, kept the tops and welded them back together to create the new LAV 6.0....this was done because funding was clawed back to purchase new vehs....so instead we recycled our old ones....This project was a dogs breakfast, the CF was receiving vehs off the line , but they had not even been tested....it was a test as you go project....(worse project the cons ever did) the new vehs did not solve any issues with the old ones had, in fact created dozens of more...DND will eat this project forever....they are not new...they are a maintence nightmare, eat brakes, (1000 KM per wheel) x 8 wheels per veh, same as tires, although they were only getting a couple 100 klicks per tire, they have solved that with ones that last a couple thousand....or maybe one exercise...ANy way garbage....with most sitting under tarps because DND can not afford to drive and maintain them... .Not enough LAV's to outfit each mechanized Infantry BN, most Bn's only have one companies worth of these vehs....to be fair some Bns do have 2 companies worth....there are 3 rifle companies per BN..... You failed to mention the new TAPV veh it has been placed on hold, this veh was to make numbers in Mechanized Infantry Bns....but has not been fully delivered... Combine this all with No logistical vehs to haul troops, supplies or fuel the army could not deploy if it wanted to.... The regular forces have been forced to strip what little equipment the reserves had to sort of make up the short falls....but it is a losing battle.....and we wonder why the reserves or their state has made the media....who knew....Thjats what happens when you starve the mother ship it eats it's young first.... No problem here move along , DND is just a money sucking beast....I wonder if the Canadian public knew just how bad DND was would we be getting any support.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 When was Oka again? That situation could have been handled by the police anyway - that's why we have police. Yes OKA was a long time ago, and yes the QPP did try and resolve it themselves, it was after an failed assault by QPP tactics squad ended with one dead swat officer and several wounded that a request went in to the military....The Airbourne regt and 2 RCR responded along with Self propelled arty and several tanks and Twin Heuys that the situation ended with no loss of life.... But what of the other aid to civil power cases where DND has provided assistance to the Canadian public because no other agency or dept could respond. Like the ICE storm, or Winnipeg floods....where most of the army had to be deployed, along with hundred from the Air force and Navy... Not to mention all the forest fires, and other smaller floods, missing persons, SAR that DND provides on a daily basis....all of this is all forgotten during budget times, or requests for equipment....Lets not forget the latest , while the liberals get all the credit for going to get those 25,000 refugees, it would not have happened without our military and its support....yes there was a few immigration, RCMP officers there but the bulk of that mission was handled by our military..... Now if our government leaders would stop deploying our troops to every shit hole in the world we would not need equipment....But that is not going to happen..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) By transport fleet I assume your talking about transport aircraft. And i'm assume you mean the two recent purchases of C-130J and C-17. The only thing the Cons did right....the rest of the fleet was purchased in the 90's or 80's....not so new..... Like the C-130H model purchased in (1996) which we have 9 Yes - but most (all?) of those are set to be replaced by the FWSAR program, if it ever gets done. C-130J Model Purchased in 2010 which we have 17 Yes C-17 Model purchased in 2007 which we have 5 A split buy, but yes. Airbus Purchased in 1992 Which we have 3 and 2 MRRT They've civilian airliners with at least a decade in them yet - nothing wrong with them. Challanger Purchased in 1982 Which we have 4 Again, a split buy with 2 purchased in 2002. Frigate Since we only have one type of frigate, they are not new, they have been upgraded, but not new First ship laid down in 1987 and commissioned in 1992, with the last ship laid down in 1995 and commissioned 1996.... I said thoroughly modern. They have two decades of life left. The CF-18 is not new , it was been upgraded on it's second upgrade but you can update anything it does not mean it's new or can compare with any modern fighter.... It is to the same standard as the F-18s being flown by our allies, and is thoroughly modern, if aging. Tank force....Yes we purchased new to US tanks We did no such thing. most people call them used, but we purchased the Leo IIA4 to be honest Germany announced they will be upgrading their tanks force, to Leo IIA7Plus That's not actually true. The tanks we have now are a mix of 2A4M CAN and 2A6M CAN - both are a mixture of standards, ranging from 2A4 to the most modern 2A7M (the side armour, for example). The new LAV veh....well it's not new either....they took our old LAV III cut the bottoms off, kept the tops and welded them back together to create the new LAV 6.0 There's very little old on them - it was simply optics to speed the purchase. The entire shell of the old vehicle is available for display. ....this was done because funding was clawed back to purchase new vehs Right - but we got 90% new vehicles for less ....so instead we recycled our old ones....This project was a dogs breakfast, the CF was receiving vehs off the line , but they had not even been tested....it was a test as you go project.... That's what happens when you're the launch customer. (worse project the cons ever did) the new vehs did not solve any issues with the old ones had, in fact created dozens of more...DND will eat this project forever....they are not new...they are a maintence nightmare, eat brakes, (1000 KM per wheel) x 8 wheels per veh, same as tires, although they were only getting a couple 100 klicks per tire, they have solved that with ones that last a couple thousand....or maybe one exercise...ANy way garbage....with most sitting under tarps because DND can not afford to drive and maintain them... There are problems with them, again, because we're the launch customer. You failed to mention the new TAPV veh it has been placed on hold, No such thing has happened - again, a problem with being the launch customer is that it's delayed. There's not really a country in the world that can say its military is in good shape. It's part of the territory - there are more important priorities. Edited June 17, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) Yes OKA was a long time ago, and yes the QPP did try and resolve it themselves, it was after an failed assault by QPP tactics squad ended with one dead swat officer and several wounded that a request went in to the military....The Airbourne regt and 2 RCR responded along with Self propelled arty and several tanks and Twin Heuys that the situation ended with no loss of life.... But what of the other aid to civil power cases where DND has provided assistance to the Canadian public because no other agency or dept could respond. Like the ICE storm, or Winnipeg floods....where most of the army had to be deployed, along with hundred from the Air force and Navy... Not to mention all the forest fires, and other smaller floods, missing persons, SAR that DND provides on a daily basis....all of this is all forgotten during budget times, or requests for equipment....Lets not forget the latest , while the liberals get all the credit for going to get those 25,000 refugees, it would not have happened without our military and its support....yes there was a few immigration, RCMP officers there but the bulk of that mission was handled by our military..... There are other organizations, that with proper funding, could better handle much of that. Edited June 17, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Smallc : but also very new equipment. The transport fleet, the frigate fleet, the modernized fighter fleet, the tank force, and now the LAV and light vehicle fleet are all very new. This is your quote is it not....there is also very new equipment ......The entire transport fleet is not new....there are only 2 types that have been purchased within the last 10 years not bad 2 out of 5.... I said thoroughly modern. They have two decades of life left. Well shit that makes them new.....the first one was commission in 1996, over 20 years of age....still does not make them new.....no amount of upgrades make them new..... It is to the same standard as the F-18s being flown by our allies, and is thoroughly modern, if aging You said new.....if they are so new then why are we having a replacement pissing contest, and while they are upto date with other F-18 B and C models....but they don't compare to anything of gen 4.5 or above Hence the modern context....Such as Euro fighter, or F-15S, or F-18E or F....they are not new...... Yes we purchased new to US tanks We did no such thing. What I meant was they were new to us (Canada) purchasing second hand off the Dutch... That's not actually true. The tanks we have now are a mix of 2A4M CAN and 2A6M CAN - both are a mixture of standards, ranging from 2A4 to the most modern 2A7M (the side armour, for example). Your right there is now a mix, we have 20 leo IIA6M in the fleet, these tanks were originally leant to us from the Germany government to use in Afghanistan. Still 2 generations behind the latest german tanks....and are the same ones used or returned in Afghanistan, can you say used hard put away wet....., X 20 leo A4 were sent back to Germany to be modified back to A6M standards....The majority of our tank fleet is still A4, and still 4 generations behind the latest designs..... But hey lets put this into context we brought our Leo IC4 tanks to Afghanistan, which were only 10 full generations behind at the time the Leo II6M, to which instead of buying new Leo II 6M , because at the time our nation was in combat and soldiers were dying .... we borrowed 20 of them from Germany, and then purchased the remainder of our current fleet second hand of the Dutch.....only to have them sit in a warehouse for 4 years before they could be used in Canada.....So there is a history of cheaping out.....And with all that does not mean they are new.... There's very little old on them - it was simply optics to speed the purchase. The entire shell of the old vehicle is available for display. You mean to say there is nothing old on the bottom half of the veh.....the top half has not been modified or updated at all same optics, same FCS, same gun, same everything..... the bottom half has a v shaped hull, new suspension, new tires and rims, new troop seats,..more weight due to additional under belly armour....no additional armour to the top or sides.... Saying we were the launch customer is retarded.....of course we were a launch customer, one that sole sourced this project because it was all we could afford....who does that cut a veh in half and call it a new veh.....but the final slap in the face is that the Saudi's order the same veh , with a twist it is all new.....top and bottom....it was tested, all the problems ironed out , with does not have any of the problems we have..... Yes the entire shell is available.....made from top shells that could not be used or vehs that were in bad shape and could not be modified .... TAPV, well according to Textron there is no production delays, it is all funding....sorry try again.... Yes a lot of militaries have problems.....not to the degree we have....but at what point do we draw a line in the sand and someone takes notice.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 There are other organizations, that with proper funding, could better handle much of that. That's the answer, other organizations could do the same thing.....Name one anyone.....and then answer this why would you fund another agency to do the same thing ...if one already exists.....and we can't fund it properly.....so now we would have 2 agencys with out the right equipment or tools....Is this you making shit up, Is this some liberal agenda.....it goes along way to show some of us there is a lot of bias again'st the military and properly funding it..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) That's the answer, other organizations could do the same thing.....Name one anyone.....and then answer this why would you fund another agency to do the same thing ...if one already exists The military is not the proper tool for much of that. Much of that would be better in the hands of true SAR, GSAR, USAR and HUSAR organizations. There are some situations where pure manpower is helpful, that is true. Edited June 18, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 TAPV, well according to Textron there is no production delays, it is all funding....sorry try again.... Yes a lot of militaries have problems.....not to the degree we have....but at what point do we draw a line in the sand and someone takes notice.... I lost my entire answer, so I'll go from here down for now: TAPV: Instead, the TAPV program has “experienced a number of significant technical issues, particularly affecting vehicle mobility,” then-Defence minister Rob Nicholson was told in August 2014. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/canadian-military-armoured-vehicle-project-delayed-by-significant-problems As for the rest: France needed us to transport their troops as they lack large aircraft. The UK needed us to hunt subs for them. Germany has only 8 working Eurofighters on any given day. Everyone has problems. People would take more notice if DND wasn't the largest department in government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 BTW, typing new in my first line in the post you responded to was a complete accident. I had no idea I'd even done that, and had completely intended to type modern - sorry for the confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 There are other organizations, that with proper funding, could better handle much of that. The military is not allowed to get involved in "civil disturbances" anyway. That's why they couldn't aid the Moncton RCMP with appropriate equipment when they were hunting Justin Bourque. Domestic issues are entirely on the police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Oh, so in addition to another Oka there's no possibility of some kind of huge security operation that would require soldiers in the streets like the Belgians have had to use. It's so good you lefties can see the future so well. How come Argus couldn't see the rise of fascism and the hard right in Europe in response to the refugees that waging war in the ME was bound to produce? I mean, lefties saw this coming 15 ago. What's the stupid right's excuse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 When was Oka again? That situation could have been handled by the police anyway - that's why we have police. As I understand it there were many heavily armed natives. The police are not trained or equipped to take on large groups of armed people. That you would suggest it simply shows how little you know about both the police and the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 As I understand it there were many heavily armed natives. The police are not trained or equipped to take on large groups of armed people. I assure you that I have more emergency services experience than you do. The military is not a legitimate tool to quell non existent civil unrest in Canada. The RCMP is now well equipped for that task, as are most city police departments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 (edited) I assure you that I have more emergency services experience than you do. The military is not a legitimate tool to quell non existent civil unrest in Canada. The RCMP is now well equipped for that task, as are most city police departments. If there's five or six armed people, not a hundred. Edited June 18, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 The military is not allowed to get involved in "civil disturbances" anyway. That's why they couldn't aid the Moncton RCMP with appropriate equipment when they were hunting Justin Bourque. Domestic issues are entirely on the police. Military did provide RCMP with equipment during the Moncton incident, such as NVG, thermal scopes, and types of coms....it could not hand over wpns they were not qualified on....but then again DND did train them on the C-8 after the incident, along with training all their train the trainers.... Would FLQ crises, OKA along with anti terrorist operations be classified as a civil disturbance....all it takes for the police to request federal assistance.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 I was specifically told by an officer at Base Gagetown that they were literally not allowed to provide equipment and support to the RCMP. So that person was wrong then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 Lets not forget Caledonia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I was specifically told by an officer at Base Gagetown that they were literally not allowed to provide equipment and support to the RCMP. So that person was wrong then? Yes they were misinformed, 2 RCR Gagetown, was told to send up a list of non wpns such as NVG's Night vision goggles, thermal devices and scopes, and some comms equipment , RCMP pick all this up and returned it later the same week. We also sent up a few LAV's with drivers and crew commanders to provide armored transport , but they were not used.... We did not send up any wpns as the police officers did not have any training on them at the time...they have since trained on the C-7/8 at CFB Gagetown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I assure you that I have more emergency services experience than you do. The military is not a legitimate tool to quell non existent civil unrest in Canada. The RCMP is now well equipped for that task, as are most city police departments. Hows that....DND trains on civil unrest / riots all the time...again OKA comes to mind, when clearing the bridge and the town of protesters. Was done with shields, batons, CS gas, and rifles....So what makes it legitimate ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Hows that....DND trains on civil unrest / riots all the time...again OKA comes to mind, when clearing the bridge and the town of protesters. Was done with shields, batons, CS gas, and rifles....So what makes it legitimate ? It's not a civil organization. Police train for riots and are legally able to carry out law enforcement/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.