[ridenrain]

I know that you can't run something 100% of the time, and if you try, you burn it out in short order.
I'd suspect this is the same as most things, 1/3rd active, 1/3 repair/reserve and 1/3 training.
Just because we had them does not necessarily mean we were using them to the full potential.

What I didn't like with this news was the idea that our beaches would be filled with drug smuggling, illegal refugees and illegal fishing, all because we were taking some aircraft off line.
This whole thing is so politicized that we even have the NDP crying for more military aircraft capabilities.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

I know that you can't run something 100% of the time, and if you try, you burn it out in short order.
I'd suspect this is the same as most things, 1/3rd active, 1/3 repair/reserve and 1/3 training.
Just because we had them does not necessarily mean we were using them to the full potential.

What I didn't like with this news was the idea that our beaches would be filled with drug smuggling, illegal refugees and illegal fishing, all because we were taking some aircraft off line.
This whole thing is so politicized that we even have the NDP crying for more military aircraft capabilities.

Who's fault is that? Just as Bootlegga said, if this were the Liberals then you guys would already be screaming about how its just another example of Liberal military hating band-aid funding at its worst. Suddenly when its the CPC doing exactly what they attacked the Liberals for then you guys do a 180.

The bottom line is that despite all the rhetoric and propaganda about Harper being the saviour of the military he is anything but. He is making a few purchases (or renting) but at pretty much the same rate and increase curve already established by Martin.

Its not that Harper doesn't want to fund the military anymore then the Liberals didn't but that as PM he has other responsibilities.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/287680

Just as in the late 90s when the Liberals were facing similiar uncertainity.

[ridenrain]

So some of you obviously would rather to keep this a political issue.
I've been unhappy with the politics of this patronage appointment and about the possibility of throwing money into something that should be replaced, but I've not called anyone into blame.
It's funny that the NDP are asking for more military but aside from that, I haven't really mentioned politics. In fact, I wished that we could get this solved without the politicians and the lobby groups.

No one has yet answered if these video recordings of illegal fishing, dumping, etc. will stand up as proof in court.
If all the aircraft can do is spot and report, then the constraint is going to be the intercepting ship, not the spotting aircraft.

[DerbyX]

$1:

So some of you obviously would rather to keep this a political issue.

Sure. Suddenly Harpers lack of defence spending shouldn't be a political issue because you guys sure didn't make it one when the Liberals were in charge. Now suddenly its "everybody stop criticizing Harper because he's doign his best".

So did Martin. So did Chretien for that matter and each PM faced a different situation but of all the three Harper is by far in the best financial position to address military deficiences which is pretty much what he promised.

It is completely dishonest of you guys to all of a sudden to not hold Harper to the same level of criticism with regards to military spending as you did the Liberals.

If anything you should be more angry because Harper and the CPC are the party you guys insisted (and the CPC promised) were the saviours of the military. Thats not happening. The Liberals were attacked day in and day out for being anti-military for their lack of defence spending and Harper is what? Prudent? Frugal?

$1:

I've been unhappy with the politics of this patronage appointment and about the possibility of throwing money into something that should be replaced, but I've not called anyone into blame.

As always though your criticism of the CPC amounts to "tsk tsk, I'm unhappy" rather then a series of scathing rambling attacks on the party as a whole. Thats what we call hypocracy and a double standard. You certainly blamed the Liberals when they were in charge.

$1:

It's funny that the NDP are asking for more military but aside from that, I haven't really mentioned politics. In fact, I wished that we could get this solved without the politicians and the lobby groups.

Thats right you haven't. Thats because if you do you will have no choice but to criticize Harper as its his responsibility entirely. You don't want to admit that despite all of Harpers promises he isn't living up to his military saviour reputation and promises.

$1:

No one has yet answered if these video recordings of illegal fishing, dumping, etc. will stand up as proof in court.

Ask Dayseed. He knows alot about the law and the rest of us could at best link to what we think are relevant pages in the criminal code of Canada handbook.

On the global political note they would be used to support accusations against a country as a whole such as "Portugese fisherman illegally fishing in our waters" in the political arena. Actually charging the boat owners/operators is something else.

As for wishing this could be solved without politicians and lobby groups, you would have a leg to stand on if you applied that sentiment to all parties fairly. You don't.

For the entire post Mulroney Liberal era the cry was that the only way to solve the military funding inadequacies were to "vote conservative" and we now know that to be untrue.

You have no leg to stand on with some BS statement about how you wish it weren't political when you were the person making it political at every opportunity.

You certainly have no leg to stand on crying about "how other people want to keep this political" when you did no such thing.

Feel free to formally apologize for making it political when it was the Liberals in charge though.

[kal]

ridenrain ridenrain:

So some of you obviously would rather to keep this a political issue.
I've been unhappy with the politics of this patronage appointment and about the possibility of throwing money into something that should be replaced, but I've not called anyone into blame.
It's funny that the NDP are asking for more military but aside from that, I haven't really mentioned politics. In fact, I wished that we could get this solved without the politicians and the lobby groups.

No one has yet answered if these video recordings of illegal fishing, dumping, etc. will stand up as proof in court.
If all the aircraft can do is spot and report, then the constraint is going to be the intercepting ship, not the spotting aircraft.

These planes do far, far more than simply "report". They can notify the coast guard, conduct SAR, conduct ASW (try mounting a MAD on a UAV), training... a plethora of things that robots can't do. And this is a political issue. Who's making the cuts? The military? Or the Government? Last time I checked, Government = political.

This is the conservatives fucking the military in the ass. Plain and simple.

[sasquatch2]

hhmmmm....There seems to be some contradiction by the critics here.

The Auroras are represented as serviceable planes which should be "upgraded".

The "upgrade" involves new wings and tail assemblies....to replace fatuigued components?

It sounds suspiciously like these birds are getting too long in the tooth. Replacement rather than cobbling.

It's like making the decision to do body work, brakes, exhaust, powertrain rebuild on your old car or buy a new one.

Somebody's patronage is threatened.

UAV's are cheaper and more available anyhoo. What is really needed is more surface assets.

BTW that $billion or so the LIBRANO's spent on Russian Carbon Credits would have bought new birds.

"THAT'S NOT FAIR.
It's not easy to make priorities."

[kal]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

hhmmmm....There seems to be some contradiction by the critics here.

The Auroras are represented as serviceable planes which should be "upgraded".

The "upgrade" involves new wings and tail assemblies....to replace fatuigued components?

It sounds suspiciously like these birds are getting too long in the tooth. Replacement rather than cobbling.

It's like making the decision to do body work, brakes, exhaust, powertrain rebuild on your old car or buy a new one.

Somebody's patronage is threatened.

UAV's are cheaper and more available anyhoo. What is really needed is more surface assets.

BTW that $billion or so the LIBRANO's spent on Russian Carbon Credits would have bought new birds.

"THAT'S NOT FAIR.
It's not easy to make priorities."

There is a huge difference between replacing a $30,000 car and a multi-billion aircraft contract.

UAV's may be more reliable, but they are not capable of near as much and have a much shorter service life.

[DerbyX]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

BTW that $billion or so the LIBRANO's spent on Russian Carbon Credits would have bought new birds.

Chump change compared to the 25 billion the CONSERVIDIOTS spent buying votes.

[ridenrain]

Derby: I've been clear to the point of verbose when I disagree with Harper, just for you.
In reflection, you have ignored all of the major liberal scandals, bragged that they were "triumphs of entipenerialship", nessesary to save Canada, or someothe nonscence.
I hear you're down against the registry and that's good but I believe you missed the boat on all the rest.

This contract to upgrade these aircraft does not sound like a good idea because these valuable avionics won't help if you can't get engine parts or you're wing spars are too cracked to fly.
If these aircraft are approching the end of their service life, we're better off replacing them instead of fixing them, like the Sea Kings and the Tudors.

$1:

The air force was quite happy to continue with the life-extending electronics upgrade to the CP-140s, of which $955 million has already been spent, until a separate and somewhat more troubling issue emerged.

Watt said the Aurora fleet did a lot of flying late in the 1980s at the close of the Cold War and that has led to signs of fatigue in wings.

When it became clear the airframe would need millions of dollars worth of repairs and reinforcements beyond the existing upgrades, staff began tossing around the idea of buying a replacement aircraft.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/999487.html

[ridenrain]

kal kal:

ridenrain ridenrain:

So some of you obviously would rather to keep this a political issue.
I've been unhappy with the politics of this patronage appointment and about the possibility of throwing money into something that should be replaced, but I've not called anyone into blame.
It's funny that the NDP are asking for more military but aside from that, I haven't really mentioned politics. In fact, I wished that we could get this solved without the politicians and the lobby groups.

No one has yet answered if these video recordings of illegal fishing, dumping, etc. will stand up as proof in court.
If all the aircraft can do is spot and report, then the constraint is going to be the intercepting ship, not the spotting aircraft.

These planes do far, far more than simply "report". They can notify the coast guard,

.. report

kal kal:

conduct SAR, conduct ASW (try mounting a MAD on a UAV), training... a plethora of things that robots can't do. And this is a political issue. Who's making the cuts? The military? Or the Government? Last time I checked, Government = political.

SAR is valuable but you still need to get those folks out of the water. That's still a boat.
ASW is valuable but I doubt Canada regularly screens for subs. We'd do that when there are war games. I doubt these drug smuggling, illegal alien, fish stealers are using subs yet.
As for UAV-ASW: I'd rather get those East coast folks working on something with a future, rather than something that's just going to keep costing money.

kal kal:

This is the conservatives fucking the military in the ass. Plain and simple.

The guys in charge, nor do the folks in the military share taht oppinion.

[DerbyX]

$1:

Derby: I've been clear to the point of verbose when I disagree with Harper, just for you.

You keep missing the point about what I have repeatedly said.

You simply wave your finger and tsk tsk when Harper does it but when the Libs do it, yoou proclaim they are all corrupt and must be voted out of office.

You don't hold both parties to equal standards and this is just another example in the list.

$1:

In reflection, you have ignored all of the major liberal scandals, bragged that they were "triumphs of entipenerialship", nessesary to save Canada, or someothe nonscence.
I hear you're down against the registry and that's good but I believe you missed the boat on all the rest.

Not at all. Chretien and Martin were exonerated from adscam and almost everything else you guys bitched about were actual scandals. Helos? They did the right thing. EI? We all know I have been proven right on that one now. Patronage? I said it was a political reality and you said only corrupt Liberals did it. Then Harper did it and you mearly proclaimed "I'm not happy".

Harper spends 25 bilion to buy votes and you aren't happy. The Liberals do it and you cry they should be forced to pay it back out of their own pockets and then kicked out of office. I said it was a political reality that all parties did toone extent or another.

See how I have been holding all parties to the same standards unlike you?

$1:

This contract to upgrade these aircraft does not sound like a good idea because these valuable avionics won't help if you can't get engine parts or you're wing spars are too cracked to fly.
If these aircraft are approching the end of their service life, we're better off replacing them instead of fixing them, like the Sea Kings and the Tudors.

Again you miss the point. I am not debating the merits of the actual deals in place but rather your double standard by which you suddenly declare that it shouldn't be political when you are quite frankly the worst offender in that regard. It was political when the Liberals were in charge because it was you making it so. Every purchase was attacked on a political level and every non-purchase even moreso.

You know full well that if it were the Liberals making these announcements and giving plaques instead of new aircraft you guys would be hollering from the rooftops about yet another example from the military hating Liberals. You know it to to.

I'd rather they simply set aside X dollars every year or Y-dollars over a few years and said "thats your equipment purchase budget. Buy whatever you think you need and however many you think you need".

You haven't been saying that. You attacked the Liberals military funding as a product of "their anti-military" nature rather then a by-product of political realities in Canada.

I said way back in 2005 that the liberals did the things they did because of political realities in our country and reflected what the voters generally wanted.

2 years later and Harper has done everything I predicted hw would because he has to to get support.

[kal]

ridenrain ridenrain:

kal kal:

ridenrain ridenrain:

So some of you obviously would rather to keep this a political issue.
I've been unhappy with the politics of this patronage appointment and about the possibility of throwing money into something that should be replaced, but I've not called anyone into blame.
It's funny that the NDP are asking for more military but aside from that, I haven't really mentioned politics. In fact, I wished that we could get this solved without the politicians and the lobby groups.

No one has yet answered if these video recordings of illegal fishing, dumping, etc. will stand up as proof in court.
If all the aircraft can do is spot and report, then the constraint is going to be the intercepting ship, not the spotting aircraft.

These planes do far, far more than simply "report". They can notify the coast guard,

.. report

I actually ment to expand on that point... but yea, glorified recon. They can still do more of it a lot faster than ships can.

$1:

kal kal:

conduct SAR, conduct ASW (try mounting a MAD on a UAV), training... a plethora of things that robots can't do. And this is a political issue. Who's making the cuts? The military? Or the Government? Last time I checked, Government = political.

SAR is valuable but you still need to get those folks out of the water. That's still a boat.

Choppers more often than not. You're not going to wait 3 hours for a cutter to get out to an emergency location

$1:

ASW is valuable but I doubt Canada regularly screens for subs. We'd do that when there are war games. I doubt these drug smuggling, illegal alien, fish stealers are using subs yet.
As for UAV-ASW: I'd rather get those East coast folks working on something with a future, rather than something that's just going to keep costing money.

You'd be surprised how much ASW these things actually do. It's not just done in war games.

$1:

kal kal:

This is the conservatives fucking the military in the ass. Plain and simple.

The guys in charge, nor do the folks in the military share taht oppinion.

[/quote]

Yea, and they didn't really share that opinion when the liberals were in power, either. Probably because if the guys in charge said they were being fucked by the government, the government would cut what little they are giving. You don't bite the hand that feeds, even if it is only table scraps.

[kevlarman]

Streaker Streaker:

It's truly bizarre to watch this government commit such utter political suicide in Atlantic Canada.

No more bizarre than to watch previous governments commit acts of political suicide in Western Canada over and over and over again... allow me to welcome you to the club then.

[kevlarman]

ridenrain ridenrain:

I know that you can't run something 100% of the time, and if you try, you burn it out in short order.
I'd suspect this is the same as most things, 1/3rd active, 1/3 repair/reserve and 1/3 training.
Just because we had them does not necessarily mean we were using them to the full potential.

What I didn't like with this news was the idea that our beaches would be filled with drug smuggling, illegal refugees and illegal fishing, all because we were taking some aircraft off line.
This whole thing is so politicized that we even have the NDP crying for more military aircraft capabilities.

But to be honest, even if ALL the current aircraft we had were completely up to snuff and out there being active we would still need more of them. And we whether or not we upgrade the old ones or buy news ones I would like to see Harper get serious about coastal defence. No more foot-dragging about whether to scrap the current planes, fix them or get new ones. Make a damn decision and do it pronto.

[bootlegga]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

hhmmmm....There seems to be some contradiction by the critics here.

The Auroras are represented as serviceable planes which should be "upgraded".

The "upgrade" involves new wings and tail assemblies....to replace fatuigued components?

It sounds suspiciously like these birds are getting too long in the tooth. Replacement rather than cobbling.

It's like making the decision to do body work, brakes, exhaust, powertrain rebuild on your old car or buy a new one.

Somebody's patronage is threatened.

UAV's are cheaper and more available anyhoo. What is really needed is more surface assets.

BTW that $billion or so the LIBRANO's spent on Russian Carbon Credits would have bought new birds.

"THAT'S NOT FAIR.
It's not easy to make priorities."

The Auroras should be at least as serviceable as the B-52s the USAF built in the 1960s, flew around the clock for decades and plan on having in service another 20+ years. Plenty of planes last longer than 25 years in service. If the Cons wanted to, these planes could be fixed.

And please, find a UAV that has a 8000 km range and is reusable (that would match the capabilites of the Aurora). Most UAVs get in less than a dozen missions before they are written off. UAVs currently are nowhere as good as the Aurora, or the US wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions developing the P-8.