# CF-156B for light attack role?



## DerKaiser (28 Sep 2008)

Canada don't have medium UAV like the MQ-12 "sky warrior" , Raytheon have an aviation branch called *Beechcraft* offers now a version of the *CT-156 Harvard II* (T-6 Texan II  variant) called AT-6B with 6 wing pylons (Fuel, gun pods, rockets and guided munitions) and for sure a electro-optical turret for day/night observation and targeting. Raytheon offers for U.S.A.F a light attack role for escort his troop in Iraq/Afghanistan. Did Canadian forces should modernized his CF-156B for a combat variant ?...remember Canadian forces don't have attack helicopter/aircraft in Afghanistan..only lease Mi-8 and "MAYBE" a CH-146 armed version "6x Packs" but isn't for now. For my part i guess is a good idea for a light attack aircraft, we can't sending CF-18 in Afghanistan ,so why not a more lighter aircraft ? .


----------



## aesop081 (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> Did Canadian forces should modernized his CF-156B for a combat variant



Just in case you are not aware, the CF do not own the *CT-156 * aircraft.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser (AKA  jimderfuhrer) 

Not to sound harsh, but reviewing your posts, I would like to ask what is your field of expertise?  If you are, as I suspect, a 'young' student; then please refrain from posting what you imagine on this site as legitimate military data.  We are not a Gamers site, and do not appreciate their fantasies of reality.


----------



## DerKaiser (28 Sep 2008)

Canadian training aircraft fleet :
- CT-156 Harvard II
- CT-155 Hawk
- CT-114 Tutor 

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/15wing/aircraft/ct156_e.asp canada don't have CT-156?


----------



## aesop081 (28 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not to sound harsh, but reviewing your posts, I would like to ask what is your field of expertise?  .



In one of his previous profiles he was a former CF reservist trying to get into the RegF this year.



			
				DerKaiser said:
			
		

> canada don't have CT-156?



We have them, but we do now OWN them. They are leased .


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Sep 2008)

I sincerely hope you are not trying to pass this off as your idea???As seen in the link below its not a new topic...We take a dim view on those who steal from other websites or sources and try to pass it off as their own without proper credit.

http://www.casr.ca/mp-army-aviation-coin.htm


----------



## DerKaiser (28 Sep 2008)

Bombarider last years autorized the modernisation of his mid-life CT-156...who care about a lease or not? i mean...look the Leopard 2A6M is a German one but Germany authorized the modernization , this is for why we have a version called "2A6M Can" because Canadian forces install a Slate armour...this is completely idiot to lease a aircraft but a our own constructor (Bombardier) refused the modernization of his aircraft. The Mi-8 who Canadian forces lease this years can be modernization because is a 40years old helicopter ,and we can install better equipment on it...this is a completly non-sense to claimed the CT-156 can't be modernized on a AT-6B...and anyway canada need a attack helicopter and aircraft in afghanistan , for many reason :
- Beligum have F-16 
- Czech Republic have helicopter
- France have helicopter and aircraft
- Germany have helicopter (Attack,Transport) and Aircraft (cargo,fighter/bomber) 
- Netherlands have lot of attack heliocpter and aircraft
- Norway  have helicopter
- Poland Mi-8
- U.K attack/bomber/cargo aircraft and helicopter (attack/cargo)
- U.S the same like U.K
- Canada only CC-177 and CC-130...and lease Mi-8 (not attack helicopter)...

Canada is alone with sometime help from Netherlands/U.k and U.S but not everyday...Canada need a light attack aircraft we can't send our CF-18 since the Canadian invasion isn't authorized to send CF-188 for escort our troops (Don't know why). Its only a idea don't panic man...


----------



## aesop081 (28 Sep 2008)

HMCS Chicoutimi 

I'm still waiting..........


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Sep 2008)

> Canada is alone with sometime help from Netherlands/U.k and U.S but not everyday...Canada need a light attack aircraft we can't send our CF-18 since the Canadian invasion isn't authorized to send CF-188 for escort our troops (Don't know why). Its only a idea don't panic man...



Have you been there on the ground when air cover was denied to our forces by the Dutch, US or the UK?


----------



## aesop081 (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> CT-156 what they can does in 2007 bombardier authorized modernization of his mid-life.



Modernization in order to maintain the level of training that is contractualy required is one thing. A complete re-roling and dispatch to a combat theatre is another.

HMCS Chicoutimi, c'mon man, i dont have all night, i have to go play war.


----------



## DerKaiser (28 Sep 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Have you been there on the ground when air cover was denied to our forces by the Dutch, US or the UK?



No but my cousin is a canadian soldiers in 408 Squadron , he was sent by three time in Afghanistan for control the CU-161 Sperwer. First time he was sent in Afghanistan that was in 2002-2003 in Kaboul he was a military police , but in 2003 after Canadian forces received his first Sperwer he changing his carer for air forces in the 408 for controled the CU-161 and he saw by some time F-15/F-16 droping bomb during operation zahar , archer and many another huge canadian missions. he send me some footages in Afghanistan http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iXCNQ30L3d8 this is for why i made some Canadian forces footages , you can see some awesome footage with CU-161 in Afghanistan. So i guess i know what is the situation in Afghanistan, soldiers died by IED and UXO , Talbian don't use AA system since they still hidden in mountains... and i said , why not a light attack bomber?


----------



## DerKaiser (28 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Modernization in order to maintain the level of training that is contractualy required is one thing. A complete re-roling and dispatch to a combat theatre is another.
> 
> HMCS Chicoutimi, c'mon man, i dont have all night, i have to go play war.



What ? HMCS chicoutimi?


----------



## aesop081 (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> What ? HMCS chicoutimi?



You posted this :

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69452/post-763292.html#msg763292

I asked you to show me proof that HMCS Chicoutimi indeed sank. You have so far refused to adress that question.


----------



## DerKaiser (28 Sep 2008)

Ok man youre very away from the conversation , talk about a cheap submarines to a idea for CT-156...did you snif some Agent Orange in Gagetown or what?...


----------



## gwp (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iXCNQ30L3d8 this is for why i made some Canadian forces footages ,


You may want to check the copyright law with regard to the unauthorized use of the Canada Wordmark and the CF badge and Canadian Forces at the end of your production.   I don't expect the Directorate of Intellectual Property or Treasury Board would be very happy with this video being represented as an official production.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You posted this :
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69452/post-763292.html#msg763292
> 
> I asked you to show me proof that HMCS Chicoutimi indeed sank. You have so far refused to adress that question.



And while you are at it, please clarify where you are coming up with all these factoids.  Your profile is empty.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> Ok man youre very away from the conversation , talk about a cheap submarines to a idea for CT-156...did you snif some Agent Orange in Gagetown or what?...



Its your credibility, not mine.

I take it you wont answer me then ?


----------



## DerKaiser (28 Sep 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> You may want to check the copywrite law with regard to the unauthorized use of the Canada Wordmark and the CF badge and Canadian Forces at the end of your production.   I don't expect the Directorate of Intellectual property would be very happy with this video being represented as an official production.



Read in right, the autorization :

Non-commercial Reproduction

Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission by the Department of National Defence. We ask only that: * Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; * The Department of National Defence be identified as the source department; and * The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Department of National Defence.

is a non-commercial reproduction and anyway the TV ad its from 2000's not a new one and i link the canadian forces website (www.dnd.ca)  so i'm in right mate...good try but not a good try in same time


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> Ok man youre very away from the conversation , talk about a cheap submarines to a idea for CT-156...did you snif some Agent Orange in Gagetown or what?...



maybe if you answered his point in the other thread he would not have had to bring it up here....


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Sep 2008)

Derkaiser - You need to just chill out. We have had thousands (literally) of enthusiastic posters come here and basically regurgitate what they have read in Jane's or Defence magazines. It is an insulting over-simplification of the mammoth tasks of choosing the best available kit in the world, on a finite budget, to meet our country's specific operational tasks and doctrine.

I strongly encourage you to read more and post less. We will have little patience with your current posting style and content.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> Bombarider last years autorized the modernisation of his mid-life CT-156



That's news to me...  I was in Moose Jaw till 2 months ago and never head of a modernisation of the Harvards...



			
				DerKaiser said:
			
		

> who care about a lease or not? i mean...look the Leopard 2A6M is a German one but Germany authorized the modernization , this is for why we have a version called "2A6M Can" because Canadian forces install a Slate armour...



The problem is that the company we lease them from is civilian.  And no where in the contract it says we'll use them in combat.  



			
				DerKaiser said:
			
		

> this is completely idiot to lease a aircraft but a our own constructor (Bombardier) refused the modernization of his aircraft.



It woudn't be a modernisation.  We'd have to buy new AT-6B, which is fairly different than the Harvard avionics/electronic wise.



			
				DerKaiser said:
			
		

> this is a completly non-sense to claimed the CT-156 can't be modernized on a AT-6B...and anyway canada need a attack helicopter and aircraft in afghanistan , for many reason :



Just so you know, we have officially 26 Harvard II.  Every morning, Bombardier (the guys contracted for maintenance) have to put 19 on the line (this is by contract).  They have a hard time making this number with the 26 aircrafts.  Most of the time, we have less, sometimes we have 1-2 more.  Also consider that 156101 is pretty close to end life I think (it's been beaten up to death and doesn't fly straight anymore...  And i'm not kidding) and 155112 has gone through an ejection (it's been sitting in the corner of the hangar for almost 2 years, being canibalized for parts).  Plus, these aircrafts are used for training.  We are constantly behind in the training.  I have yet to see a course on the Harvard II that finishes on time. Plus, we need to train pilots, put them through their wings course so they can become useful.  So, we NEED these aircrafts and more!  Taking 10 out of the fleet to "modernize" to an attack version wouldn't make any sense even if it would be possible...

Please get your facts straight before you come up and throw these crazy ideas out there and try to justify them!!


----------



## gwp (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> Read in right, the autorization : Non-commercial Reproduction is a non-commercial reproduction and anyway the TV ad its from 2000's not a new one and i link the canadian forces website (www.dnd.ca)  so i'm in right mate...good try but not a good try in same time


Not talking about the content ... it is the use of the Canada Word Mark and CF Badge at the end that implies that the production is an official production of the Government of Canada and or the CF.  That is where you creativity falls off the rails.  Not withstanding the illegal use of music, but that is another issue.


----------



## DerKaiser (28 Sep 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> Not talking about the content ... it is the use of the Canada Word Mark and CF Badge at the end that implies that the production is an official production of the Government of Canada and or the CF.  That is where you creativity falls off the rails.  Not withstanding the illegal use of music, but that is another issue.



CF bagdge? many of my video are from camera combat without "CF badge" ...mate i have more 40GB of video on my computer, my friend from Army in LAVAL , R22eR and many another Quebec regiment send me lot of video...my friend in youtube authorized me to use his video from a M113 TUA...isn't all camera combat footage many are from my friends own made video. I don't know where did you think but i know my right and the music is a autorized music  Youtube authorized lot of music and Epicon authorized it


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser, il parle de la fin quand ca dit "STRONG, PROUD" avec le logo des FC et le numéro de téléphone, suivi de la feuille d'érable avec le nom "Canada".  Ca, ca enfreint les copyright...


----------



## DerKaiser (28 Sep 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> DerKaiser, il parle de la fin quand ca dit "STRONG, PROUD" avec le logo des FC et le numéro de téléphone, suivi de la feuille d'érable avec le nom "Canada".  Ca, ca enfreint les copyright...



Trop pas ,  li bien ici 

Copie non commerciale

L'information de ce site y a été affichée afin de faciliter la disponibilité à des fins d'utilisation personnelle ou publique non commerciale et peut être copiée, en tout ou en partie et par quelque moyen que ce soit, sans frais ni permission du ministère de la Défense nationale. Nous demandons seulement : * que l'utilisateur fasse preuve d'une diligence raisonnable en s'assurant de l'exactitude des documents copiés; * que le ministère de la Défense nationale soit identifié comme le ministère source; * que la copie ne soit pas présentée comme une version officielle des documents copiés, ni comme une copie faite en collaboration avec le ministère de la Défense nationale ou avec son consentement. 

J'Ai identifier les site d'ou mes videos viennes, j'ai donc le droit de copié le video sans l'utulisé pour le commerce et c'est pas pour le commerce c'est un messages contre la propagande des russes sur youtube. C'est comme chercher une trou quand yen a pas...c'est inutile de dire que je copie un video quand je met le liens d'ou il provident avec le copie non-commerciel.


----------



## gwp (28 Sep 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> DerKaiser, il parle de la fin quand ca dit "STRONG, PROUD" avec le logo des FC et le numéro de téléphone, suivi de la feuille d'érable avec le nom "Canada".  Ca, ca enfreint les copyright...


And the Canada Wordmark is only authorized for use on official Government of Canada materials. Splicing it onto the end of your remix of other video is misrepresenting the Government and the CF.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> .........my friend in youtube authorized me to use his video from a M113 TUA...



On the "LEGAL" front; you do realize that your friend may have broken the National Defence Act by publicizing that video in any way shape or form and sharing it with you?  Your friend may have committed a VERY SERIOUS SECURITY VIOLATION.  You may now be a "co-conspirator" in his crimes.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Sep 2008)

Does Timmy have any captured Yak 3's or LA-7's? Maybe we could reactivate some Mustang squadrons while we're at it.


----------



## DerKaiser (28 Sep 2008)

Les lois je l'est connait j'ai trois personnes dans ma familes qui travaille a radio-canada a Montréal et Caraquet (N-B) j'ai plein de videos qui previennet de mes amies, des archives ,de mon cousin en Afghanistan et certain qui provient du site officiel de www.dnd.ca etwww.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/  et la lois stipule que j'ai lautorisation d'utulisé au complet ou en parti de fichier video (que ca soit annonce publicitaires ou bien vidéos des forces canadiennes). Je n'est ni représenté le vidéo comme annonce-officiel ( je l'est meme marquer ) c'etais un Re: sur un video russes que eu aussi on utulisé l'exemple d'une annonce publicitaires (faux biensure). Mon video n'est pas pour le commerce , j'ai marquer mes droits d'utilisation personnel c'est le cas sur youtube et de plus j'ai marquer d'ou les video provients donc je suis dans la légalité totales.

Et pour la musique youtube a fait autoriser des musiques par des centaines de groupes très connue ,comme Metallica exemple qui accepter qu'ont peut utulisé leur musique sans verser une cents. Donc vous cherchez des troues à des places qui n'a pas....c'est completement stupides de votre par de m'envoyer pratiquement chier parceque je fait un vidéo que plusieure video ont été autorisé par des gens et que la lois stipule que je suis dans les droit  totales.

Et en plus de ca ca rien n'a voir avec mon sujet...que d'ailler vous m envoyer tout chier un par un parceque j'ai dit que le canada a besion d'un AT-6B....wow quel merveilleux site, vous dite bonjour a  tout le monde de même?


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser, it's not the videos the problem.  It's the use of the Canada Woodmark at the end of it, which is supposed to only be on official government documents.  Same goes with the "STRONG, PROUD" part.  What do you NOT understand?

Did you read my post about the AT-6B to come back on topic?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Sep 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> DerKaiser, it's not the videos the problem.  It's the use of the Canada Woodmark at the end of it, which is supposed to only be on official government documents.  Same goes with the "STRONG, PROUD" part.  What do you NOT understand?
> 
> Did you read my post about the AT-6B to come back on topic?



Good luck trying to get hime to go back on topic....Cdn Aviator has been trying to get him to do so regarding the Chitcoutimi and the P8 and he has had no luck as of yet.


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> ...did you snif some Agent Orange in Gagetown or what?...



Methinks someone is trolling.

Let the meltdown commence.

op:

OWDU


----------



## DerKaiser (28 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> On the "LEGAL" front; you do realize that your friend may have broken the National Defence Act by publicizing that video in any way shape or form and sharing it with you?  Your friend may have committed a VERY SERIOUS SECURITY VIOLATION.  You may now be a "co-conspirator" in his crimes.



Dude , canadian army authorized personal stuff like MP3 and Cam corder...not in BMQ/SQ but after all you can for sure, for your personal time (break). What a security violation when the M113  TUA is old...isn't Area 51 man its canadian army. some place in canada you can't use some electronic stuff and camcorder like NORAD but in the rest of Canadian army branch you can for sure.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Sep 2008)

OK I am tired of this.

LOCKED!!


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2008)

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> Dude , canadian army authorized personal stuff like MP3 and Cam corder...not in BMQ/SQ but after all you can for sure, for your personal time (break). What a security violation when the M113  TUA is old...isn't Area 51 man its canadian army. some place in canada you can't use some electronic stuff and camcorder like NORAD but in the rest of Canadian army branch you can for sure.




OK

DerKaiser

Time to lay down the law.  YOU DO NOT KNOW OF WHICH YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.  

You have read articles, and seen things, and not fully understood what you have seen or read.  You are posting false information.  You do not know whether or not a BREACH OF SECURITY has been committed.  You don't even have a clue of what SECURITY is.  You, therefore, don't know what the National Defence Act is, nor any of the other SECURITY regulations that members of the Canadian Forces must follow.

Therefore, I am telling you now.

STOP POSTING incorrect and possibly illegal information that may be in BREACH of CF Security Regulations.

Failure to do so will initiate your being put on the site's WARNING System



George
Milnet Staff


----------

