U.S. to provide air cover for Canada

[justcrowing]

The Liberals crap over the Americans and look who does the air cover for Canada!! Priceless!

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/subscribe/index.html

U.S. to provide Canadian air cover

Afghanistan 'too far' for our fighter jets

Chris Wattie, National Post

Published: Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Canadian soldiers deploying next month to Afghanistan will be relying on the United States for air cover after a proposal to send Canadian fighter-bombers to the region was scrapped at the last minute, the Post has learned.

Military sources said six CF-18 jets were to have been included in Task Force Aegis, the 2,200-member Canadian battle group that is moving into restive southern Afghanistan in February.

But the air force had to change plans because of the high cost of getting the six upgraded fighters from 4 Wing in CFB Cold Lake, Alta., to Afghanistan and the technical difficulties involved in basing high-tech aircraft halfway around the world.

"It was a bridge too far," said one air force officer, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They just couldn't get the maintainers [and] all the[[ir equipment there and keep them there for six months."

[Wilber]

Good god, we can't even deploy six, I say SIX aircraft overseas for six I say SIX months. Ain't that something for Canadians to be proud of. We're number one, we're number one. Pathetic.

[Wilber]

Too bad. it would have got some of the Storm Troopers out of the country where they can't be threatening our freedoms in our cities.

[Yaro]

This is hardly surprising, the CF-18's are pieces of crap with worse uptime ratios then the F15's and we have already spent a huge amount of money just maintaining the force that we have there which is relatively speaking close to the size of the US occupation of Iraq, and in far more hostile territory.

I think it’s about time that we be a little realistic and accept that Canada can't do any significant good in a country on the other side of the planet with a population of virtually the same size. Time to pull out.

[Wilber]

This is hardly surprising, the CF-18's are pieces of crap with worse uptime ratios then the F15's and we have already spent a huge amount of money just maintaining the force that we have there which is relatively speaking close to the size of the US occupation of Iraq, and in far more hostile territory.

I think it’s about time that we be a little realistic and accept that Canada can't do any significant good in a country on the other side of the planet with a population of virtually the same size. Time to pull out.

The US Navy seems to like the F18 just fine (they have continually upgraded it and brought out new versions) and so do the Aussi's.

As a percentage of our military it may be close in relative terms but that is just because we don't have very much. If it was close as a percentage of our population's, we would have 16,000 troops there, not 2000.

If we are not able to accomplish much, it is our own fault.

[tml12]

The Liberals crap over the Americans and look who does the air cover for Canada!! Priceless!

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/subscribe/index.html

U.S. to provide Canadian air cover

Afghanistan 'too far' for our fighter jets

Chris Wattie, National Post

Published: Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Canadian soldiers deploying next month to Afghanistan will be relying on the United States for air cover after a proposal to send Canadian fighter-bombers to the region was scrapped at the last minute, the Post has learned.

Military sources said six CF-18 jets were to have been included in Task Force Aegis, the 2,200-member Canadian battle group that is moving into restive southern Afghanistan in February.

But the air force had to change plans because of the high cost of getting the six upgraded fighters from 4 Wing in CFB Cold Lake, Alta., to Afghanistan and the technical difficulties involved in basing high-tech aircraft halfway around the world.

"It was a bridge too far," said one air force officer, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They just couldn't get the maintainers [and] all the[[ir equipment there and keep them there for six months."

I thought the Americans hated us?

Hopefully the anti-American crowd will quiet down.

[Slim MacSquinty]

So we didn't have any military bi-planes available?

[tml12]

So we didn't have any military bi-planes available?

If we ever had a serious natural disaster in this country we would need the Americans ASAP

[Wilber]

We have some reserves but no regular army west of the Rockies. We did have an engineer base at CFB Chilliwack until it was closed down a few years back as part of Martin's cutbacks. If we had a major natural disaster requiring the kind of equipment the engineers had, the nearest help would be Ft Lewis just south of Tacoma Washington, assuming they hadn't been hit by the same thing. Even though a good proportion of them are committed in Iraq, I bet they would still find a few to help us out.

[geoffrey]

We have some reserves but no regular army west of the Rockies. We did have an engineer base at CFB Chilliwack until it was closed down a few years back as part of Martin's cutbacks. If we had a major natural disaster requiring the kind of equipment the engineers had, the nearest help would be Ft Lewis just south of Tacoma Washington, assuming they hadn't been hit by the same thing. Even though a good proportion of them are committed in Iraq, I bet they would still find a few to help us out.

This is what Harper was refering to in the actual speech, before the Liberals twisted it into some military dictatorship idea.

Theres alot of danger on the west cost (Earthquakes, Tsunami's, giant fish attacks, whales plugging up sewage systems, ect.). The fact that the nearest Canadian help is on the other side of mountains, with roads impassible during most winter storms, is very frightening.

If I were a BC resident, I'd be pushing pretty hard for those soliders... with guns... in our cities...

I mean that.

[Boondoggle]

This is hardly surprising, the CF-18's are pieces of crap with worse uptime ratios then the F15's and we have already spent a huge amount of money just maintaining the force that we have there which is relatively speaking close to the size of the US occupation of Iraq, and in far more hostile territory.

I think it’s about time that we be a little realistic and accept that Canada can't do any significant good in a country on the other side of the planet with a population of virtually the same size. Time to pull out.

Actually, I saw an interview with a pilot once, and he said that whether you're talking about an F-15, F-16 or F-18, they're all lethal, and the difference is in the skill of the pilot.

Until the F-35s and F-22s are ready, the newest of the bunch is the F-18 Super Hornet. I doubt Canada will get F-22s because they're so expensive, but Canada did contribute money to the development of the F-35 program, and the order of who gets them first is based on who contributed and how much. Therefore, it seems that the Canadian government wanted to keep the option to replace the F-18s with F-35s open. Why replace the F-18s with an older plane like the F-15 or the updated F-18 Super Hornet when you can use them until the F-35s are ready?

Of course, I don't see how the difference between the F-35s, F-22s and F-18s really matters when you're talking about fighting the Taliban.

[Boondoggle]

So we didn't have any military bi-planes available?

If we ever had a serious natural disaster in this country we would need the Americans ASAP

It's obviously much easier to deploy troops and equipment in your own country than a landlocked country thousands of miles away with poor infrastructure.

[Wilber]

A VTOL AC like the F35 makes sense. They would be able to use it on the proposed small multipurpose carriers. This would give Canada the sort of respectability on international deployments that it has never had. As the F35 is the Harrier replacement, we would be in line behind the Americans and Brits so it would be a few years yet.

[cybercoma]

How embarassing that our leader goes public slamming their country and in return, they supply us with necessary military equipment we can't get ourselves.

[tml12]

How embarassing that our leader goes public slamming their country and in return, they supply us with necessary military equipment we can't get ourselves.

It shows, positively I think, that at least some people can put humanity above politics.

[Black Dog]

If we ever had a serious natural disaster in this country we would need the Americans ASAP

I can't for the life of me understand why disaster response and SAR are military duties. There should be a seperate civilian agency responsible for domestic and foreign disaster response and recovery, as well as emergency search and rescue.

A VTOL AC like the F35 makes sense. They would be able to use it on the proposed small multipurpose carriers. This would give Canada the sort of respectability on international deployments that it has never had.

Because that's what the military is for: a status symbol to show other countries how bad-ass we are. Couldn't Canada just buy a flash sportscar and get a young trophy girlfriend instead?

[cybercoma]

If we ever had a serious natural disaster in this country we would need the Americans ASAP

I can't for the life of me understand why disaster response and SAR are military duties. There should be a seperate civilian agency responsible for domestic and foreign disaster response and recovery, as well as emergency search and rescue.

A VTOL AC like the F35 makes sense. They would be able to use it on the proposed small multipurpose carriers. This would give Canada the sort of respectability on international deployments that it has never had.

Because that's what the military is for: a status symbol to show other countries how bad-ass we are. Couldn't Canada just buy a flash sportscar and get a young trophy girlfriend instead?

We need the military because of the funding it gets, the equipment it has, the ability to communicate and mobilize quickly, etc. etc. etc.

The military is a status symbol...wow. Are you for real?

[Leafless]

tm-12

You wrote- " It shows positively I think that at least some people can put humanity above politics."

I think it shows the U.S. stands up for it's allies even though Canada refused to to be an ally concerning help required when asked by the U.S. involving the Iraq situation.

Shame on this bigoted country.

[Black Dog]

We need the military because of the funding it gets, the equipment it has, the ability to communicate and mobilize quickly, etc. etc. etc.

So there's no reason another agency can't do the job. In fact, I'd rather have an agency devoted specifically to the task of emergency preparedness, with the necessary funding and training to do the job.

The military is a status symbol...wow. Are you for real?

The way some people done on about the importance of Canada's military to ensuring our status in the world, I can't help but wonder if that's how people see the military.

I think it shows the U.S. stands up for it's allies even though Canada refused to to be an ally concerning help required when asked by the U.S. involving the Iraq situation.

Shame on this bigoted country.

Oh, do shut up. Iraq was a bad idea from the get go. Not going was just good policy.

[kimmy]

This is hardly surprising, the CF-18's are pieces of crap with worse uptime ratios then the F15's and we have already spent a huge amount of money just maintaining the force that we have there which is relatively speaking close to the size of the US occupation of Iraq, and in far more hostile territory.

That's odd. I've read that during Gulf War v1.0 the F-18s established flight-time to maintenance records that are unmatched in military aviation history.

I have a hunch here that the issue here is not the F18s themselves, but simply the fact that jet fighters-- any make or model in the world-- require a lot of maintenance. Engineers and mechanics, specialized equipment and facilities, spare parts and components. And that's without even getting them off the ground. We'd also have to arrange for tons of fuel, and adequate takeoff and landing facilities, and ordinance. I think that the logicistics and costs of all of this is highly significant whether we're sending 6 planes or 60. If our allies-- the Americans are still our allies-- are already performing the logistics of keeping planes in the air in Afghanistan (or from Turkey or wherever it is that they're set up) then duplicating their efforts seems like a costly and unnecessary exercise.

I can't for the life of me understand why disaster response and SAR are military duties. There should be a seperate civilian agency responsible for domestic and foreign disaster response and recovery, as well as emergency search and rescue.

Why does that make sense?

The military has been performing these sorts of activities for us, and if you're wondering why, I would think that in large measure it would have to do with already having the right kind of equipment (transports, helicopters, reconnaissance planes, and so on) and full-time employees who are trained in the use of this equipment.

There's the idea that requirements are in many cases similar. Both have the requirement to be able to quickly deploy to some possibly remote location and set up operations. Military engineering capabilities-- construction of roads, bridges, communications facilities, whatever, on the fly-- are capabilities that are needed as much in a military situation as in a disaster relief situation. And there's some overlap in the actual duties. Mobile medical capabilities, for instance. Civil unrest can certainly accompany natural disasters, and the ability to maintain law and order could certainly be an important part of an emergency response.

Wouldn't what you're suggesting just result in a duplicate bureaucracy, duplication of equipment, duplication of employees, duplication of costs and effort? It seems to me that it would be more sensible to just accept that the duties of our armed forces have expanded far beyond the traditional notion of killing people and blowing stuff up.

Because that's what the military is for: a status symbol to show other countries how bad-ass we are. Couldn't Canada just buy a flash sportscar and get a young trophy girlfriend instead?

Hey, you never know. Maybe a shiny new strategic transport would help Canada finally close the deal with Turks and Caicos, or hook up with a hot young latino republic.

In all seriousness, we as Canadians have collectively put a high value on the work we do in the international community, haven't we? It seems to me that peacekeeping is always one of the first things people mention when you ask them why they're proud Canadians. If that's the case, it seems to me that it's important to actually be able to meet the commitments we make, whether to our allies, or to the UN, or just to our generalized belief in the importance of providing humanitarian assistance. We need to either have the equipment and personnel to do those things, or we need to reassess our belief about how we relate to the world community.

-k

[Hicksey]

Let's just boil this down to its simplest.

For their own security (and we know they'll protect that at almost any cost) they pretty much have to.

Simple as that.

[Wilber]

If we ever had a serious natural disaster in this country we would need the Americans ASAP

I can't for the life of me understand why disaster response and SAR are military duties. There should be a seperate civilian agency responsible for domestic and foreign disaster response and recovery, as well as emergency search and rescue.

Just what we need, another agency.

A VTOL AC like the F35 makes sense. They would be able to use it on the proposed small multipurpose carriers. This would give Canada the sort of respectability on international deployments that it has never had.

Because that's what the military is for: a status symbol to show other countries how bad-ass we are. Couldn't Canada just buy a flash sportscar and get a young trophy girlfriend instead?

Like it or not we live in a world where the ability to actually act according to what you say really means something. The rest of the world isn't just like Canada. We have the flash sports car and young trophy girlfriend but the rest of the world could care less. We don't even get respect from our friends any more.

[Boondoggle]

A VTOL AC like the F35 makes sense. They would be able to use it on the proposed small multipurpose carriers. This would give Canada the sort of respectability on international deployments that it has never had.

Because that's what the military is for: a status symbol to show other countries how bad-ass we are. Couldn't Canada just buy a flash sportscar and get a young trophy girlfriend instead?

If that's the case, Canada should be going for the F-22. The F-35 is actually a pragmatic approach by design:

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, formerly the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) Program, is the Department of Defense's focal point for defining affordable next generation strike aircraft weapon systems for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our allies. The focus of the program is affordability -- reducing the development cost, production cost, and cost of ownership of the JSF family of aircraft.

http://www.jsf.mil/program/

You can view the countries that are involved here: http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_intl.htm

and an image with an F-35 that has a Canadian flag on it here: http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/mediakits/pos...airshow2005.pdf

As usual, when it comes to the military, the Liberals only spend enough to say they're doing something, but Canada is still involved.

I know there are pacifists in this country that'd be happy to have the neglect of the armed forces continue, and perhaps they'd be even happier if Canada didn't even have armed forces, but history shows that Canada is not a nation of pacifists. There is nothing wrong with having a properly funded military, and there are some things worth fighting for. For example, The General in charge of the UN peace-keeping mission in Rwanda, Romeo Dallaire, is Canadian. He told everyone months in advance about what would happen and said he needed a couple thousand more troops. Canada likes to have peace-keeping as a national symbol and already had a General in charge of the mission so why not send a couple thousand troops? Was it that Canada was unable to do that because of the government cutting the budget and expecting the military to do more with less, or did they just turn their backs like everyone else while 800,000 people were killed? Either way, it doesn't exactly reflect well on us does it? If people are concerned about getting involved in armed conflicts, they should focus on the policy not on the funding for the military.

[America1]

Let's just boil this down to its simplest.

For their own security (and we know they'll protect that at almost any cost) they pretty much have to.

Simple as that.

who's security?

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

So there's no reason another agency can't do the job. In fact, I'd rather have an agency devoted specifically to the task of emergency preparedness, with the necessary funding and training to do the job.

There is already a federal dept and provincal depts of emergency preparedness which is funded out of the Military budget. Accounting for just over 1/4 of DND's total budget. As a cost saving measure it was agreed to use military equipment and personal for reasons already stated in other posts.

The way some people done on about the importance of Canada's military to ensuring our status in the world, I can't help but wonder if that's how people see the military.

You'll have to admit the military does go along way in carrying out our foreign policies.