Argus Posted July 30, 2005 Report Share Posted July 30, 2005 RE: Heavy lift.Why do we need a heavy lifter? As BHS's link above on teh AN-124 states: It would be prudent for the CF to wean itself off equipment so large that it routinely requires such an airlifter. You mean like armored cars, trucks and APCs? They're quite the help in staying alive, you know, when people are tempted to shoot at you. Then there are large items like those used by DART, which require large airlift. Are you suggesting our soldiers can do without hospitals? Then there's the simple fact that large aircraft can carry a lot more people and equipment, even if individual pieces of equipment aren't very heavy. Why do you see an advantage in flying mlitary equipment over on ten smaller aircraft instead of two or three large ones? Course it would also be prudent for Canada to focus on protecting Canada's territory, not serving as America's own Gurkhas. Even protecting Canada's own territory requires an airlift capacity as it would take quite some time to move military equipment by train from, say New Brunswick to BC or the Yukon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 Maybe he was'nt talking to Canadains but using the media to talk to his soldiers. Gen Hillier's comments were blunt and to the piont i think a few people have forgotten that he his not a polition but a Soldier. Parrish should take a trip on tax payers money over to Afgan and see for herself what those beast of Canada are doing in the name of our Flag. When you deal with the media, the most important thing to ask yourself before opening your mouth is: "Who is my target audience?" With Gen. Hillier, it's obvious that he's frequently talking through the media to his soldiers, sailors and pilots in language they appreciate. Listening in is the Canadian public, which is being told that an appropriate foreign policy decision to dispatch as many terrorists as possible for an early reunion with their maker is a dangerous but necessary business.Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 Black dog: RE: Heavy lift.Why do we need a heavy lifter? As BHS's link above on teh AN-124 states: Heavy lift aircraft are a strategic transport required for bringing in huge loads of equipment and supplies into rear bases. or for getting large amounts of equipment and supplies into areas very quickly like the recent deployment of the Dart team... The normal transport aircraft like the ones we have now the C-130B and H models are tactical transports much smaller loads and can use short unprepared runways closer to the frontlines. Canada does have a need for heavy lift aircraft just based on the size of our country, the amount of overseas deployments our Armed forces does, and the state of our current fleet of C-130's. Our fleet of herc's is taxed to the very limit just sustaining our troops in Bosina and Afgan. As for the russian equipment yes it 's cheaper but you get what you pay for. besides Russia is no longer producing the heavy lifters that we continue to rent. niether is the US producing the C-5. Someone mentioned the C-17 heavy lift aircraft earlier the last ones were offered at 150 milion a copy, however the British have leased some from the US. Perhaps Canada could lease some as well. Canada's military is going through it's current inventory and getting rid of or retiring everything that will not fit into a C-130. it is purchasing new equipment based on that however (which is another debate) it is very difficult to find light equipment that affords the same protection and fire power as the over sized equipment we have now... plus there is the fact that we have always deployed by ship where there is no weight or size limit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcqueen625 Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 They just may as well add another loud mouth to their fold, who cares! I wouldn't vote for them regardless. They are too corrupt, and not trustworthy, besides that fact, ramming legislation down our throats that the majority of Canadian's do not want, specifically C-38. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 Well, the sky hasn't fallen yet like the cons predicted. I'll bet the # of SSM's haven't gone through the roof yet either. In other words, bill C-38 hasn't really affected too many lives, except maybe to intensify the rightwing's pre-existing antigay sentiments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Chauncy Posted August 4, 2005 Report Share Posted August 4, 2005 Wasn't sure whether to vote "help" or "dont know" sp pressed "help". No reason really other then she amuses me. I like her. Anyone as dumb as she is who manages to get into a position of power that she attained has to be likable.LOL SC 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.