Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Twin engines aside,

Canada was switcing from a multi fighter airforce to a single fighter airforce. We had CF-101 Vodoos and F-104 Star Fighter and C-5 Freedom fighters.

therefore we need a multirole fighter that could replace them all. I am sure money played a role too--the F-14 was very exspesive aircraft.

I say we retool the Avro Arrow!!! Through some canards on it and paint it dark gray....they'll never know what hit 'em!

   

Just a little political rant.. pissed off.. was going to start a new thread but damn it anyway this one looks good.....

Still trying to figure out where in the hell we are going to park the aircraft carrier harper promised us the the last election. Harper is an idiot.. the conservatives will never win an election with him at the helm.. the Bloc will even form the next official opposition.. Can't even vote for cadman. now. damn it anyways.

Canadian armed forces wish list:
1. New armoured vehicles and transports. with armour this time....
2. proper equipment so they can get the job done the first time.
3. transport aircraft and heavy lift helocopters.. so we can move said equipment.
4. New helicopters to replace the sea kings ( already on the way yippee)
5. A multipurpose ground attack interceptor fighter.. built in Canada...
6. 3 new navy frigates
7. No aircraft carrier... maybe a support ship or 2 with a helicopter carrier.. ("USS Tarawa for example")
8. How about more pay and advancement opportunities.
9. Iltis jeeps should be flown to shilo manioba for weapons testing....
10. A new airborne unit in canada.. more anti terrorist training first responce stuff..
and finally a canadian army base back in BC.. Aldergrove is just a station.. we have armouries.. can a new base be built in hope or back in chilliwack or somewhere PLEASE....besides edmonton.. or Comox/ Esquimalt.
Thats all... but I guess harper will never understand.. cuase he wants his little row boat so he can show off.. the man is just a child. But who do you then vote for.. the corupt liberals the inept conservatives...thedisillusioned NDP... oh well Vive la quebec.. where can I vote for the bloc in BC......

   

I am trying to find out info but Harper never wanted Aircraft carriers. He wanted a troop and equipment carrier. Not an American styly aircraft carrier.
The Liberals propogated the Aircraft carrier myth and the media and public bought it.

Some one back me up here....

6. Canadas Halifax class Firgates are the best in the world. But do we need 3 new ones? Aren't severeal sitting in port cause they do not have enough crew?

8. Great idea, all for that.

10. JTF2, at least in my understanding has effectively taken over the role as the disbanded airborne unit.

   

The Halifax used to be one of the Best... Maybe we should look at the Swedish Girafe concept for the next generation of ships.

ANd Canada should reform the Airbornes regiment. The liberals did disband them, but the people were reshuffled. Most if not all of them are still around.

   

Harper wanted Hybrid carriers--could carry trops, equipment and helicopters.

   

[quote="-Mario-"]The Halifax used to be one of the Best... Maybe we should look at the Swedish Girafe concept for the next generation of ships.

quote]

Whats wrong with out Frigates? Fast, mannuverable, pretty heavily armed, dual propulsion (jet engine or diesel) ect. And they are not that old.

Only ship in the world that can integreate seemlessly into a US battle group.

Couldn't find any info on these Swedish ships you mentioned....got a link?

   

Well the Tarawa is an aircraft carrier it's simply been designed for the main role of amphibious landing, thus its smaller then a Nimitz or other US Aircraft Carrier. It has a larger airwing then most of the rest of the worlds aircraft carriers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rriers.htm



Best would be a tad debatable on that one, they may be good, but to my knowledge they are lacking several of the major breakthroughs such as phased radar array

But I'm not too knowledgeable about world wide frigates. They're probably better then the Oliver Hazard Perry, but that wouldn't be all too surprising.

   

themain idea of my last post for a "helo carrier" capable of amphibious landing such as the Tarawa.. support ships.. you kind of then need either partol frigate like we have or guided missle destroyers to act as a shield.. it becomes a canadian task force of ships that can deliver equipment supply and troops rather than a couple of canadian ships detached to the USN or the british RN.....

I seem to remember Harper on capital hill during the last election making mention of an "aircraft carrier".. it was after that the Liberals jumped all over him and he made the pointed reference then to a helo carrier idea.

   

In canada if we had an F-16 flame out over BC one engine.. then that 1 lost aircraft. A Twin engine aircraft like the f -18 provides a second level of security.. becuase we have a BIG Country......
We couldn't afford the f-15 or the f-14.. besides Canada needed an aircraft that offered strike and interception capabilites and the F -18 fit the bill at the time...

   

1. We have already made plans to purchase armoured vehicles called the Stryker, which is basically one of our LAVs with a 105 mm anti-tank gun on it. The US is so impressed by it they are buying over 2000 of them!

2. Our troops have some good equipment but they seem to get it after they need it; case in point, desert camo fatigues when they deployed to Afghanistan for the first time. Silly. But no army is ever entirely ready for the next war it fits...the US wasn't expecting to need thousands of armoured Hummers and trucks for the war in Iraq, and so didn't buy them fast enough.

3. The liberals will be buying them if they get re-elected. If not, I'm sure the CF can count on the Cons spending insane amounts of money on them, so either way, they'll get them.

4. 2010

5. Building a fighter in Canada by ourselves would cost BILLIONS of dollars, and it's hard enough to get people to accept 12 billion on defence. We're better off particpating in the JSF program, which we are already doing BTW.

6. We don't need 3 navy frigates, but three new destroyers to replace the Iroquios class ships, which are now over 30 years old. These will likely be designed and built in Canadian shipyard(s). They currently form the heart of our 'task forces' such as they are, with SAM and Surface to Surface strike capabilities.

7. The Cons wanted to build a 30,000 ton helicopter assault ship, similar to the US San Antonio class or Tarawa class LPD ships.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-sealift-antonio.htm

While it wasn't a true carrier, it could have carried up to a dozen choppers and other equipment, as well as land VTOL fighters (like the Harrier). Personally, I think it would be cheaper and make more sense to buy a couple RO/RO (Roll-on/Roll-Off) frieghters, and fit them with a chopper deck. We don't really need an 'assault' type ship to carry our troops around in. Odds are, if a beach needs to be taken, it would be done by those with large amphibous units like the US and UK.

8. Better pay is definitely needed, but only for the lower ranks. There are way too many highly paid admirals and generals in the Forces already. Is there any reason that a force of 60,000 has 73 admirals/generals?

9. The Ilits is a piece of junk, but why not give it to the UN for peacekeeping uses, like we did with those old Cougars?

10. The reason BC doesn't not have an army base is because it has a naval base at Esquimalt. There are plenty of places without bases of one kind or another. With such a small CF, there is no need for dozens of bases across the country.

   

I was listening to the guy from Esprit de Corps who was casting some doubt about the proposed Liberal defense promises, among other things.
He was also casting some doubt on the MGS project. His argument was that a light system is good as long as you have air transport to get it to where you need it, fast, but at the end of the day, it is still light armor. It's never going to replace a tank.

I agree with you on another Canadian fighter program but one of the big competitors to Bombardier is Embraer, who make a number of simple turbo-prop COIN type aircraft. Sure, it's not a front line fighter but it's good enough to monitor west coast shipping lanes, and the fact that it can be made here is a huge plus.

Esprit de Corps

   

We chose the F-18 because it is an all around good fighter and bomber it is also carrier born so we can go on seaborn missions and exersices with countries like the US and others in NATO and the UN with carrier capabilities.And most victories are won by the pilots not nessasserily the planes

   

Yes we have. Start on page 8...

There, saved us all a bunch of typing.

   

If canada only intends to do the easy fighting itself, and leave all the difficult parts to the US and UK (predominantly the US) then why would canada ever have all that much influence with the US and the UK when it comes to anything requiring military force? We'd appear nothing more then a fair weather friend.

If you expect to hold sway in the world and foreign policy in general you need something a little more credible then claiming that someone else will always be around to do it for you.

There is a reason why, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, France, Italy and Brazil all have carriers.

   

So are you telling me that Thailand is more respected worldwide for peacekeeping/peacemaking abilities than Canada because it has a carrier (and a mighty ineffective one at that)? South Korea? Brazil? I don't think so...even with carriers, the Thai, Korean, Brazilian and Spanish navies are considered less effective than ours (by simple combat effectiveness). If you count quality, than our navy is better than everyone but the US, UK, and Israel. Even the Italian navy has only about 25% more combat power than us, while the French have a little more than double.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtom ... eworld.asp

You can dispute this figures if you wish, but they were taken from a well-known military historian (James Dunnigan). Say what you want, but our navy is one of the better ones out there.

We'll need a San Antonio class warship when WW3 breaks out, not to ship troops and equipment to Afghanistan (landlocked BTW). We also wouldn't have needed something like that Somalia, Bosnia, or Haiti. That's why we don't need it. Any transport would have sufficed...there haven't been many 'hot' landings in the past fifty years, and when they have occured, enemy forces were suppressed by airpower (Other than the Falklands and Gulf War 2, I can't think of any).

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtom ... ies/an.asp

An effective military force is not necessarily a large one. Brazil ranks as number 2 in the Americas in combat power, but they have to employ five times the manpower Canada does (in #3 BTW), and spend over twice what we do. We can be efffective, but for us to rank with the US and UK we would need to spend at least $40 billion a year to do so. Then we could have a carrier or two, several hundred top of the line aircraft and a couple of divisions of infantry.

But why do we need that? There is no nation physically capable of invading us right now, except the US. If they ever attacked us (which I don't think will happen), it wouldn't matter how big the CF is, we'd lose straight-up, but I don't doubt there be a nasty little insurgency here. Even if the US refused to 'protect' us (as so many on Canadaka seem to think they do), no single nation could lift more than a division of troops to attack us. Trust me, 20,000 soldiers and 500 tanks wouldn't conquer us. The brigade in Edmonton alone would probably be able to handle that...even if they couldn't, Canadians en masse would join the Forces and we'd crush whoever was silly enough to attack us.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against military spending, but it needs to be rationally spent. I'm more than willing to spend $20 Billion (and pay taxes to support that) if it's spent on stuff we need. Buy more planes (AWACs, and JSF) and ships to guard our approaches, especially the Arctic. A squadron of small, fast patrol boats like the Norwegian Skjold class would help off our West and East coasts. Rebuild the Airborne as a quick reaction force to counter moves in the Arctic. Buy/lease 4 C-17s (or even the A400M from Airbus) to carry our troops and equipment around the world when we deploy. The US has already told us that they would be glad to sub-lease them from us when we don't need them (for their own resupply missions worldwide), so it could possibly work out to be a very affordable option. Expand our reserves to allow them to assist in overseas deployment (1 platoon per regiment is obviously not enough), and increase our standing forces back to about 80,000.

But we don't need a carrier or specialized amphibious assault capabilities for something that might happen in 20 years. We don't need to equip and maintain two or three infantry divisions either. Build for what we need now, not what might be needed. The fact is, that if WW3 erupted tomorrow, Canada would step up like we did several times in the 20th century.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next