# CF-18 Drops AIM-7 on Golf Course.



## jutes85 (19 Jun 2004)

http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=nwt-golfmissile06182004

YELLOWKNIFE - The Yellowknife Golf course is closed for now after an unarmed missile fell off a Canadian Forces CF-18.

The CF-18 was landing in Yellowknife when the missile fell off. The jet was landing at the airport about 7 a.m. when the AIM-7 Sparrow missile dropped off. Police closed the nearby highway for over an hour. Guy Kennedy is the assistant manager of the Golf Course. Kennedy was preparing to open the course for the day when an RCMP officer rushed into the club house and told him the place had to be evacuated.

"While (the Mountie) was doing that, he was speaking on the radio to someone and said to someone on the radio that he had a visual on the missile," recalls Kennedy.

"At which point I went...'you have a visual on the missile?' And I kind a looked where he was looking out on our driving range and there was a missile out on our driving range. At that point I realized what everybody was talking about." 

Kennedy says a major golf tournament has been cancelled and there is no word when golfers can return.

A military official told reporters he's never heard of anything like this happening before. 

Major Rob Carter commands the 441 Squadron out of Cold Lake Alberta. 

Carter's team were on en route to Inuvik, after stopping in Yellowknife to refuel.

"It's an American built aircraft and there are a number of different countries that fly them, says Carter.

"That would be a good question that we'll probably start asking now, is had this happened somewhere else?"

According to Canadian Press, five CF-18s have accidentally dropped bombs since 1990.


----------



## b.scheller (19 Jun 2004)

This just reminds me of that *STUPID* Liberal commercial about Stephen Harper "He would have sent our troops into Iraq; Spent millions on defense budget...", perhaps it would be a good thing if the primeminister started paying more attention to its troops. If they cut more funding, we'll be finding bombs in our backyard... :


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer (19 Jun 2004)

Hey, do you think the pilot yelled "FORE"?!!


----------



## jutes85 (19 Jun 2004)

I bet if the Liberals wanted to send Canadian Troops into Iraq, they wouldn't be able to get there without US help. Wasn't a Military supposed to be self-efficent?


----------



## tabernac (19 Jun 2004)

> Military supposed to be self-efficent?


We've gotten assistance so many times that I had no idea.


----------



## Military Brat (19 Jun 2004)

jutes said:
			
		

> Wasn't a Military supposed to be self-efficent?



Yup, the military WAS self sufficient prior to the Liberals being voted into power back in the early 90s. Ever since then the Liberals have been feeding into this belief among many Canadians that we can just rely on the Americans for everything defense-related. How sovereign are we really if we can't defend ourselves or send our troops/equipment abroad without the help of the US?


----------



## jutes85 (19 Jun 2004)

A little of topic here, but before I posted this, I had 7/7 in the rating thing. Now its +7/-8. Don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## drebk (19 Jun 2004)

is rating that big of an issue? +7/-8 is almost neutral, will people actually discount your posts b/c of a -1 slant?


----------



## nULL (19 Jun 2004)

Hey military brat, ever wondered how well a country does maintaining a defence budget when it is carrying a billion dollar deficit? The military may have been "self sufficient" before the liberals, but the country sure wasn't, what with Mulroney's huge (35+ billion) deficit. Nobody's saying an armed forces isn't necessary, but defence spending is a hole. I'm not a government economist, and neither are any of you; but i'm pretty sure that if there is money to spare, it will be spent. Not that that's a bad thing, but  I think there's a fine line between having enough money to sustain the forces to fulfill their obligations and having enough money to purchase equipment that probably isn't necessary (like aircraft carriers). Canada should find a niche role in fighting a war and fund that, not try and be an all-encompassing fighter that does everything half assed. I mean, jesus, it's not like what the conservatives are promising this time around is going to turn us into a superpower able to fight a war anywhere on earth. If it only cost an extra 600 million to shut off the conservatives stream of votes from the military sector, i'm pretty sure paul martin would do it. Instead it would cost billions from other areas of government spending that canadians might actually care about. Call me cynical, but the conservatives are probably going to get a minority government because the canadian public is sick of liberal corruption and incompetence than some deep-seated urge to give their soldiers tanks and strategic airlifts, so that they can go to Iraq and get blown up all by themselves.

As for the plane, shit happens. These aren't homemade weapons that explode when you tap them. They have to be armed. How many times has this happened? 5 since they were aquired? How many flights would you reckon have been performed since then? I'd say it has less to do with a crumbling defence budget than a hasty weapons tech or "just one of those things". Have any of you seen the picture of the missile being accidently fired from the jet onboard the US aircraft carrier?


----------



## Arctic Acorn (19 Jun 2004)

Gawd, I love working up here.


----------



## drebk (19 Jun 2004)

but here you go jutes, a gift from me to you! +1 ;-) you seem like a good guy... i was hit with a +1/-2 rating by like my 15th post =(, just trying to get a feel for the place and i was in the red, but i've clawed my way out, kudos to you


----------



## Arctic Acorn (19 Jun 2004)

At first, I was pissed that the Ops O wanted me to spend a chunk of my weekend guarding the thing, but it never happened. My wife would have been pissed, but in retrospect I'd rather hang out with the crashed plane than go on our previously planned camping trip. 

I hope the pilot enjoys his new career as the logistics officer for the Abandoned radar site in Mould Bay.  :dontpanic:

Yellowknife airport scene of two CF-18 accidents 
WebPosted Jun 19 2004 02:38 PM CDT 
YELLOWKNIFE 

The Department of National Defence is investigating an aborted landing by a Canadian Forces C-F 18, the second accident involving a military fighter jet at the Yellowknife airport in the past two days.

On Saturday morning one of the jets was landing when it went out of control and skidded off the runway.

The pilot ejected safely, landing a short distance from the aircraft.

He is in hospital with minor injuries.

"The aircraft was departing the runway and according to his standard operating procedures he ejected," says Major Rob Carter.

Carter is with the 441 Squadron out of Cold Lake, Alberta.

Early Saturday, a coast guard helicopter circled the plane which sat lop-sided on the edge of runway.

Yellowknife's airport will remain closed while a team from the Department of National Defense works to secure the aircraft and remove the live ammunition it carries. 

One of the missiles on the plane detached on impact, another will have to be removed before the plane is moved. 

Military officials say the landing gear did not collapse, but they are trying to determine if there was a problem with landing gear or the braking system. 

The area had recently received heavy rain, and investigators say they'll also assess weather was a factor in the accident. 

It's the second day the Yellowknife airport was forced to close.


FROM JUNE 18, 2004 : Stray missile pre-empts golf tournament 

On Friday, a missile fell from another CF-18 on its approach to the N.W.T. airport.

RCMP cruisers blocked the highway adjacent to the airport after an AIM-7 Sparrow missile landed on the driving range of a local golf course.

The missile was live, but the safety mechanism was on.

For that incident, local transportation officials closed a nearby highway, and evacuated parts of the airport and the nearby diamond polishing plants.

That missile was detonated on Friday night at the site where it landed.

DND expects to have the CF-18 involved in today's incident removed by Sunday morning. 

Both CF-18s were based in Cold Lake.

A Hercules aircraft will bring a second team in from that Alberta base to remove the jet.

Medi-vacs and emergency aircraft can still land at Yellowknife airport, but all domestic flights have been cancelled.


----------



## sgt_mandal (19 Jun 2004)

nULL said:
			
		

> ... a billion dollar deficit...



I hope I'm not changing the topic too much but I was wondering, how will the forces get out of this? how does any department get out of a deficit?


----------



## Andyd513 (19 Jun 2004)

I have to agree with nULL on the fact this is likely just a hasty loading job or a fluke.

However, the ability for an armed force to transport itself is extremely important. Martins reply of "if you talk to anyone in peacekeeping they need hospital ships, not carriers!" is laughable. Sure you can sit a hospital ship off the coast of anywhere. But how do you get patients there? You can't keep the ship within site of land and keep it safe. Also a strategic airlift carrier like that could carry tons of aid relief and deliver it quickly with helicopters, along with medics and troops to distressed regions.

A tactical carrier makes sense for Canada's role in the world, especially if we plan to continue being Canada's Peacekeepers.


----------



## nULL (19 Jun 2004)

To cut a deficit you decrease government spending and/or reallocate funds from other areas of the government. Like from unity funds  :skull: 

 God, the waste that went on is sickening.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Jun 2004)

Andy_d said:
			
		

> I have to agree with nULL on the fact this is likely just a hasty loading job or a fluke.
> 
> However, the ability for an armed force to transport itself is extremely important. Martins reply of "if you talk to anyone in peacekeeping they need hospital ships, not carriers!" is laughable. Sure you can sit a hospital ship off the coast of anywhere. But how do you get patients there? You can't keep the ship within site of land and keep it safe. Also a strategic airlift carrier like that could carry tons of aid relief and deliver it quickly with helicopters, along with medics and troops to distressed regions.
> 
> A tactical carrier makes sense for Canada's role in the world, especially if we plan to continue being Canada's Peacekeepers.



The term you might want is assault carrier there are no tactical carriers. As for protection of an HVU such as a hospital ship well it would not be within arty range but it would be within helicopyer range. You would have with it small boats for local patrols, air assets and not to mention a destroyer or frigate. It would not be left alone.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Jun 2004)

You know at this time I feel going into the red wouldn't be such a bad thing.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2004)

> Canada should find a niche role in fighting a war and fund that, not try and be an all-encompassing fighter that does everything half assed.



Nope.   We do that, were just setting ourselves up to be further marginalized when the call comes out.   How would we niche roll anyways?   Buy more blue baseball hats and ten round magazines?   People seem to have this BIG misconception that Peacekeeping, which lies on the low end of the spectrum of conflict, is something different than an all out war.   I sat in a quiet area in Bosnia for 6 months, and we still had flak vests, helmets, support weapons, LAV's and helicopter support.   Look at some of the hardwear General Mackenzie brought to UNPROFOR, which was a UN mission; TUA's, mortars, 50 cals, etc.   Unless you want a purely observer status for the Canadian Forces you must understand that operations across the spectrum of conflict demand the exact same thing, *well trained and equipped soldiers that can sustain themselves in the field*.



> I mean, jesus, it's not like what the conservatives are promising this time around is going to turn us into a superpower able to fight a war anywhere on earth. If it only cost an extra 600 million to shut off the conservatives stream of votes from the military sector, i'm pretty sure paul martin would do it.



I think your confused.   There is a difference between becoming a superpower (which we can't) and a fully capable force which can be properly fielded and sustained abroad to support Canadian interests.   Isn't it odd that the Aussie's can deploy a battlegroup to East Timor or Iraq, and yet we have to hitch a ride with them or the Americans, eat their food, use their ammo, blah blah blah.   Kind of embarrassing if you ask me.   I would say the short term goal (which hopefully the Conservatives can deliver) would be for Canada to live up to its White Paper obligations and be capable of independently deploying a Brigade Group overseas.   Yes, it costs money, but to say we don't need it is silly.



> Instead it would cost billions from other areas of government spending that Canadians might actually care about.



Well, I don't really care about a two billion dollar Gun registry.   I don't really care about paying 26% of my income to social programs so others can be unproductive and live off the public purse.   I don't really care to funnel more money into a health care system that is fundamentally unsound (Even though the conservatives have also planned to do that, much to my chagrin).   

Canadians who do vote for these things have their head in the sand and need to take a closer look at the issues.



> Call me cynical, but the conservatives are probably going to get a minority government because the canadian public is sick of liberal corruption and incompetence than some deep-seated urge to give their soldiers tanks and strategic airlifts



Call me cynical, but all your vaunted NDP has promised to do is hike military pay; we are the second highest payed soldiers in the world, there is other concerns for me, thank you (Hey, enjoy your high pay and military union, because you're going to be sitting in the UN Headquarters in New York for the rest of your life!).   Sounds as nutty and unrealistic as the rest of their ideas.   Hey, lets raise corporate taxes and taxes on the upper class so they can pay even more than the 70% they already pay!   Let's drive out Canada's prosperity!   Hey, well I'm at it, I'm going to pedal my bike down to Washington and tell the Americans to change the Second Amendment of their Constitution!   Vote for Jack Layton!

If the NDP ever got elected in Canada I would seriously consider moving.



> so that they can go to Iraq and get blown up all by themselves.



That's just ignorant; I don't even need to reply buttercup, but you should seriously reconsider joining the Infantry, both for your sake and the sake of the Corps.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Jun 2004)

Although MacKenzie snuck those TUA's into the conflict.  I agree with you on everything you wrote though.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2004)

He snuck them in because it was one of his only ways of letting those assclowns know that he meant business and wasn't going to let his guys get bushwacked.  The fact that he had to sneak them in probably shows us that the misconception is prevalent in UN Headquarters as well....

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Jun 2004)

Oh I know why he snuck them in.


----------



## nULL (20 Jun 2004)

> > Canada should find a niche role in fighting a war and fund that, not try and be an all-encompassing fighter that does everything half assed.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  We do that, were just setting ourselves up to be further marginalized when the call comes out.  How would we niche roll anyways?  Buy more blue baseball hats and ten round magazines?  People seem to have this BIG misconception that Peacekeeping, which lies on the low end of the spectrum of conflict, is something different than an all out war.  I sat in a quiet area in Bosnia for 6 months, and we still had flak vests, helmets, support weapons, LAV's and helicopter support.  Look at some of the hardwear General Mackenzie brought to UNPROFOR, which was a UN mission; TUA's, mortars, 50 cals, etc.  Unless you want a purely observer status for the Canadian Forces you must understand that operations across the spectrum of conflict demand the exact same thing, *well trained and equipped soldiers that can sustain themselves in the field*.




Perhaps I wasn't specific enough with "niche role." When you look at the forces equipment wise, it always seems like the equipment is rarely top notch. The griffin is underpowered, the Canuck-Stryker variant is a poor replacement for a tank etc.  To say it simply/stupidly (not difficult for me ) why not say scrap the tactical sealift capability and focus on making the capabilites we do have tip-top? 




> > I mean, jesus, it's not like what the conservatives are promising this time around is going to turn us into a superpower able to fight a war anywhere on earth. If it only cost an extra 600 million to shut off the conservatives stream of votes from the military sector, i'm pretty sure paul martin would do it.
> 
> 
> 
> I think your confused.  There is a difference between becoming a superpower (which we can't) and a fully capable force which can be properly fielded and sustained abroad to support Canadian interests.  Isn't it odd that the Aussie's can deploy a battlegroup to East Timor or Iraq, and yet we have to hitch a ride with them or the Americans, eat their food, use their ammo, blah blah blah.  Kind of embarrassing if you ask me.  I would say the short term goal (which hopefully the Conservatives can deliver) would be for Canada to live up to its White Paper obligations and be capable of independently deploying a Brigade Group overseas.  Yes, it costs money, but to say we don't need it is silly.



Then why wouldn't the Liberals do it, if it would keep the military happy and get more votes? It's got to cost more.




> > Instead it would cost billions from other areas of government spending that Canadians might actually care about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're in the minority. I bet if you asked most Canadians which they'd rather have, a gun registry or a well funded military, they're take the registry.




> > Call me cynical, but the conservatives are probably going to get a minority government because the canadian public is sick of liberal corruption and incompetence than some deep-seated urge to give their soldiers tanks and strategic airlifts
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who said I was voting for the NDP? I may like them, but they have no chance of forming a government, and the Liberals have pissed away way too much money. The conservatives deserve at least a minority government _but i'm keeping a close eye on them_  ;D



> > so that they can go to Iraq and get blown up all by themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just ignorant; I don't even need to reply buttercup, but you should seriously reconsider joining the Infantry, both for your sake and the sake of the Corps.



yeah, in retrospect that was a pretty dumb thing to say. apologies. I blame it on the little ndp guy in my heart.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Jun 2004)

With regards to the griffin, there is a new power plant coming online in the near future.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jun 2004)

> Perhaps I wasn't specific enough with "niche role." When you look at the forces equipment wise, it always seems like the equipment is rarely top notch. The griffin is underpowered, the Canuck-Stryker variant is a poor replacement for a tank etc.   To say it simply/stupidly (not difficult for me ) why not say scrap the tactical sealift capability and focus on making the capabilites we do have tip-top?



You can't pick and choose your capabilites and refine what you do best.   Ok, we save a few bucks and eliminate armour.   We will wear it (and Canadians will come home in boxes) when our jeep-equipped troops get rushed by T-72s.



> Then why wouldn't the Liberals do it, if it would keep the military happy and get more votes? It's got to cost more.



The Liberal government of the day seems to be good on reneging on its duties and promises, so I guess that's why they've ignored it.   Otherwise, I would also level a finger at that monstrosity of a bureaucracy the DND has created.



> You're in the minority. I bet if you asked most Canadians which they'd rather have, a gun registry or a well funded military, they're take the registry.



And that is why I am inclined to dismiss the average opinion; like I said, they've got their head in the sand.   People will gab about alot of things they feel they know about, and yet when it comes to the core of the issues, they know jackshit.   The best example is the knee-jerk reaction of Canadian citizens who feel any attempt to reform the health care system will result in an "Americanized" system (Which is also a big, misunderstood myth).



> Who said I was voting for the NDP? I may like them, but they have no chance of forming a government, and the Liberals have pissed away way too much money. The conservatives deserve at least a minority government but i'm keeping a close eye on them.



I came to the conclusion that your past support of the party put you in their camp; can you blame me?


----------



## Zoomie (21 Jun 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> With regards to the griffin, there is a new power plant coming online in the near future.



Really?  If you are referring to the Y-model of the Bell 412, the CF is not on-board for those modifications.  $$$$


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Jun 2004)

Not sure what model it was but my source is in INT so who knows.


----------



## Limpy (23 Jun 2004)

b.scheller said:
			
		

> This just reminds me of that *STUPID* Liberal commercial about Stephen Harper "He would have sent our troops into Iraq; Spent millions on defense budget...", perhaps it would be a good thing if the primeminister started paying more attention to its troops. If they cut more funding, we'll be finding bombs in our backyard... :



Maybe they should have found some bombs in the yard of Paul Martins residence. They might have smartened up a bit and increased defense spending. ;D


----------

