 Open season for bad guys The federal government�s plan to upgrade just over half its fleet of Aurora maritime patrol planes will leave huge gaps in the country�s coastal surveillance, according to several retired military pilots.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
It's truly bizarre to watch this government commit such utter political suicide in Atlantic Canada.
For once I agree.
Those aircraft and subsequent jobs are necessary. Whoever dreamed up the plan should be taught free fall with a paper handkerchief.
"What it means is, we can only do about half of what we should be doing,"
Not WHAT WE ARE DOING but what we COULD be doing.
Having fewer of them creates opportunities for people who smuggle drugs, fish illegally or empty ships� oily bilge water into the ocean, rather than pay to dispose of it properly, said the retired colonel.
These crimes may be spotted by these aircraft but it's still a ship that catches them. If someone has an example where the videotaped evidence of one of these crimes was sufficient in court, I'd be gob-smacked.
This is a pretty desperate cry for patronage.
"What it means is, we can only do about half of what we should be doing,"
Not WHAT WE ARE DOING but what we COULD be doing.
Having fewer of them creates opportunities for people who smuggle drugs, fish illegally or empty ships� oily bilge water into the ocean, rather than pay to dispose of it properly, said the retired colonel.
These crimes may be spotted by these aircraft but it's still a ship that catches them. If someone has an example where the videotaped evidence of one of these crimes was sufficient in court, I'd be gob-smacked.
Dear God, your partisanship is ... fuck, I don't have any words for it.
If a LIBERAL dared to piss away almost a BILLION dollars (God only knows how many times you've called Chretien cancelling the EH-101 -- cheap at HALF the price -- a scandal), you'd be having a seizure right now, instead you write this off as an attempt patronage. You are shameless!
The point, is that where we had 18 planes, we now will have 10, meaning that they CF can patrol a little more than half of what they used to. So if we patrolled 1.8 million square KMs last year, after this we will be able to patrol somewhere around 1.0 million square kms when all is said and done.
If this is Canada First, then I'm voting Liberal!
Fucking the military with a smile on their face.
I guess now we see the cost of the C-17s.
This is a pretty desperate cry for patronage.
"What it means is, we can only do about half of what we should be doing,"
Not WHAT WE ARE DOING but what we COULD be doing.
Having fewer of them creates opportunities for people who smuggle drugs, fish illegally or empty ships� oily bilge water into the ocean, rather than pay to dispose of it properly, said the retired colonel.
These crimes may be spotted by these aircraft but it's still a ship that catches them. If someone has an example where the videotaped evidence of one of these crimes was sufficient in court, I'd be gob-smacked.
Dear God, your partisanship is ... fuck, I don't have any words for it.
If a LIBERAL dared to piss away almost a BILLION dollars (God only knows how many times you've called Chretien cancelling the EH-101 -- cheap at HALF the price -- a scandal), you'd be having a seizure right now, instead you write this off as an attempt patronage. You are shameless!
The point, is that where we had 18 planes, we now will have 10, meaning that they CF can patrol a little more than half of what they used to. So if we patrolled 1.8 million square KMs last year, after this we will be able to patrol somewhere around 1.0 million square kms when all is said and done.
If this is Canada First, then I'm voting Liberal!
Boot - it is a cry for patronage, I agree. I don't see that as a political comment going either way - I'm sure the CF would be happy with whomever puts up the $$$ to get them back in business.
The reality of this, though, is the Aurora is an old plane. That said, my gut tells me they're reconditioning the best ten airframes and 'promoting' the other eight to hangar queens as a cheap source of parts to keep the best ten airworthy and operational. New parts for 30 year old planes would cost up the ying-yang.
I see it in the USA, too.
Every motor pool sgt worth beans always manages to get their hands on at least 50% more vehicles than they really need so they can use the extra for parts.
The reality is that politicians love spending money on vehicles and etc. but they ALL get tight fisted when the subject is spares.
The CF is doing what they can with what they've got and this is about them explaining, in advance, why they can't meet their mission objectives.
This way when some moron calls them before a committee in Ottawa to explain why (whatever) slipped by them they can say, "Remember what we said back on 20 DEC 2007?"
It doesn't matter if it's Liberal or Conservative government. They both have one thing in common:
Fucking the military with a smile on their face.
Oh, I've said tons of times here, that no matter which party is running the show, the screw over the CF, but righties like RR and Samsquanch only remember what those vile Liberals did. When it comes to their beloved Cons, they can do no wrong.
I guess now we see the cost of the C-17s.
Looks like we would have been better off buying those AN-124s, then maybe we could afford planes to patrol our coastlines...
Just because you have them does not mean you're using them now.
If I saw 100% use. I'd be sure that coverage must drop. Even at 50% use, coverage might drop. We have no indication how many of those 18 aircraft are being used right now so we definately cannot say that taking some away will make any difference.
You also gloss over the entire point that this is about contiuing a patronage contract in the first place.
I was originally going to write that I'd love to see the military come out with a non-partizan schedule that politics can't touch, but when a German arms dealer has become the Liberals best friend, nothing is too rediculous te accept.
You defended buying the C-17s because Boeing was going to spend a big chunk (I think it was 80%) of the contract here in Canada. Isn't that patronage? We all know where the aerospace industry is in Canada (mostly in Quebec and Ontario).
I guess now we see the cost of the C-17s.
Precisely.
Canada has been on the look out for a for a while now. We won't let our water unsupervised. Yes the Aurora fleet is cut in half, and I could see why the pilots are worried, but UAV should be on Canada's arsenal in a near future.
Are the Auroras decrepit, Mario? They aren't all that old, really, but I know that they spend a lot of time at low altitudes, which maybe accelerates wear. (
You avoid my entire point Boot.
Just because you have them does not mean you're using them now.
If I saw 100% use. I'd be sure that coverage must drop. Even at 50% use, coverage might drop. We have no indication how many of those 18 aircraft are being used right now so we definately cannot say that taking some away will make any difference.
You also gloss over the entire point that this is about contiuing a patronage contract in the first place.
I was originally going to write that I'd love to see the military come out with a non-partizan schedule that politics can't touch, but when a German arms dealer has become the Liberals best friend, nothing is too rediculous te accept.
Thinking that we can fly 100% of out aircraft all the time is stupid. Aircraft have to be taken out of rotation for maintenance, training, etc. Do you think we have planes just sitting on the apron, fully capable of flight, with no flight roster??? With 18 a/c, we may be able to have 10 flying at any given time. With 10, that number may drop to 6 or whatever. The point is where we had 18 planes we could make use of, we will now have 10.
Sure, we may be able to make up for the lack of patrols with UAV's, but now we're down training aircraft too. The RCAF is hard pressed enough to keep up with the operational needs of the filght program (not just patrols). Reducing the number of operation aircraft will not help in any way at all.