# Air Force still needs a lot more



## MarkOttawa (25 Aug 2006)

$18B bolstering just a start
Air Force head: 75 aircraft on order: Planes in service now will need replacing soon
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a7bf58f2-3077-43d1-a09a-a9aaca28bedd

Note attack aircraft for Afstan.



> Lieutenant-General Steve Lucas told the National Post yesterday the purchases of new heavy transport planes, fleets of new helicopters and replacements for the military's Hercules cargo planes are a good beginning, but more will soon be needed...
> 
> Ottawa announced in June that it will buy 16 CH-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopters and four C-17 Globemaster cargo jets for a total cost of $8-billion. Another 17 aircraft will be bought to replace Canada's C-130 Hercules transport planes for about $4.9-billion.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Astrodog (25 Aug 2006)

this is the kind of stuff that really excites me... as MikeG put it so eloquently a few threads back, an exciting time to be wearing blue!


----------



## J_Muir (25 Aug 2006)

Astrodog said:
			
		

> this is the kind of stuff that really excites me... as MikeG put it so eloquently a few threads back, an exciting time to be wearing blue!



And also an exiting time for those who hope to some day be wearing blue!  ;D


----------



## Loachman (25 Aug 2006)

Bleccchhh.

I hope to someday be wearing green again - in a reborn Army Aviation Corps.

That, along with some of the aircraft mentioned, would be worth an extra heartbeat or two per minute.


----------



## Heatwave (25 Aug 2006)

It depends on who's wearing the blue, I suppose??  There are a huge amount of "blue-wearing" support trades that currently require all sorts of specialized vehicles and equipment to ensure that all these new purchases are kept in the air......with no commitment to upkeep, replace, or maintain these specialized items (Think bowsers, GSE, Fire Vehicles, Snow Removal, etc.).  Yes, it'll be exciting, but a bigger challenge then it already has been.  Personnel and experience are dropping like flies, resulting in overtasked and under-established trades.  It's hard to keep the excitement and motivation (although we try) in your personnel, when they don't see any positives coming their way from these purchases.  We knew many years ago that, "Doing more with less" could only be performed for so long.  By what I've witnessed the last year, or so.....it's time to declare an in-flight emergency!!   

Ironically, if you don't get the new aircraft, you have a hard time justifying the requirement for new specialized support vehicles (as old, falling apart, and more expensive to maintain then purchasing new vehicles, never seems to be considered as proper justification).  Sorry, as I seldom use this forum as a "rant."  But all too often the purple trades, (which I realize aren't the mission, but are there just to support it), are forgotten and it's assumed that they'll be happy in hearing announcements about new planes.  It's nice to see and hear about, but there is much more to getting an aircraft in the air, then just buying it.  

JMHO
Chimo!


----------



## bison33 (25 Aug 2006)

Unlike loachmen, I have no desire to be "army aviation"  .........unless they put a gattling gun on the ramp of the chinook's :threat:
 Many more CAS's, CDS's and politicians will come and go before the micro slim chance of gettng more planes after these big purchases, in the near future anyways(won't even touch the fighter pukes).....It would be nice but I don't see us going beyond what's coming to us over the next few years. But saying that, it is a good time to be in the hairforce..... now, if they build an Outrigger(fixed wing boys know what I'm saying) near Camp Mirage and in Afghanistan, airforce life would be perfect ;D


----------



## ark (25 Aug 2006)

Astrodog said:
			
		

> this is the kind of stuff that really excites me... as MikeG put it so eloquently a few threads back, an exciting time to be wearing blue!



Intentions and promises are nice but don't believe it unless you can physically touch and see it


----------



## Barracuda13 (26 Aug 2006)

It's really good to hear these news, personally i think the people in the forces deserve these new equipment and aircraft, but does these news hint us something about how things are going to develop in the near future? Don t get me wrong I think this was something they should have done long time ago. Now we're spending big bucks on weapons and such with conservatives , if liberals come to power next , do you think there might be underfunding ? I would hate to see aircraft left to collect dust&rust. In any case , to me this shows the commitment of the goverment in the Afghan operation. You know I trust in our military but honestly I don't trust in politicians. I was just wondering what you guys think about the outcome of buying these weapons, is it to  increase our involvement?or just help us do the job easier?


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (26 Aug 2006)

I don't want to draw fire but while the C-17 and Chinook are more than welcome upgrades and in my opinion long overdue, is anyone actually suprised to hear that we "...will eventually need even more planes, including new search and rescue aircraft, replacements for the CF-18 fighters, new surveillance aircraft and ground attack and medical evacuation helicopters -- all within the next decade." ? 



> I was just wondering what you guys think about the outcome of buying these weapons, is it to  increase our involvement?or just help us do the job easier?


 It is to help them do their job period. There have been very few aircraft with that new car smell added to the inventory since well....a long time ago. Most of the current aircraft have more than done their time and it is time for something new. (IMHO)


----------



## TheCheez (27 Aug 2006)

MikeG said:
			
		

> I don't want to draw fire but while the C-17 and Chinook are more than welcome upgrades and in my opinion long overdue, is anyone actually suprised to hear that we "...will eventually need even more planes, including new search and rescue aircraft, replacements for the CF-18 fighters, new surveillance aircraft and ground attack and medical evacuation helicopters -- all within the next decade." ?
> It is to help them do their job period. There have been very few aircraft with that new car smell added to the inventory since well....a long time ago. Most of the current aircraft have more than done their time and it is time for something new. (IMHO)



I think by dropping the word this early on about upcoming purchases it'll ease the public backlash over all the spending. Talking to family and friends they seem to think that $15B is plenty and the airforce is set for a long time to come. Canada isn't used to continuous major military spending, hopefully it goes over well enough to get our fleets turned over before they're falling apart like the current A/C up for replacement. Gen Lucas is just getting the word out early, good on him.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Aug 2006)

At the risk of starting a flamewar, how about this as a starting point:

a) we get an Air Force, rather than a fractious and cantankerous grouping of platform-based tribes
b) we articulate what capabilities we truly need (not just would like, or always used to have) in the current operating environment
c) we are mature enough to allow that conversation to be framed by the new reality of 4GW
d) we ask the hard question - "what can the Air Force do to help" without the Army chiming in with "what have you done for me lately"
e) and again, for emphasis, we seek capability, rather than airframes, and harness that capability rather than fomenting the internecine warfare that characterises the community now...

Just a thought.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Aug 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> At the risk of starting a flamewar, how about this as a starting point:
> 
> a) we get an Air Force, rather than a fractious and cantankerous grouping of platform-based tribes
> b) we articulate what capabilities we truly need (not just would like, or always used to have) in the current operating environment
> ...



Agreed. "platform tribes" is doing us no good.  It is important however to look beyond the current operations ( not limiting ourselves to operations in Afghanistan) and keep the emphasis on multi-mission capabilities. An imprtant aspect as well, is to have the will to use existing capabilities in operations and not have pes train for missions the government will not deploy them to ( like the CF-18s or the CP-140).


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Aug 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> An imprtant aspect as well, is to have the will to use existing capabilities in operations and not have pes train for missions the government will not deploy them to ( like the CF-18s or the CP-140).



Or adapt the platform to suit the requirements...not ask for a shiny new thing - just make the old thing work - and now, not 25 years from now.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Aug 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or adapt the platform to suit the requirements...not ask for a shiny new thing - just make the old thing work - and now, not 25 years from now.



I'm all for that.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Sep 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> It is important however to look beyond the current operations ( not limiting ourselves to operations in Afghanistan) and keep the emphasis on multi-mission capabilities.



I phrased this the other day as training for war, rather than this war...


----------



## Fyuri (1 Oct 2006)

Reading this thread makes me wish my eyes were better, and/or hope they change their vision requirements soon. Sorry to complain, I don't know all the regulations and whatnot, but not too long ago the Air Force was asking for pilots (still are, as far as I know), and yet they're so strict about the one thing I can do nothing about. (Sorry if this is a bit off topic).


----------



## Elwood (3 Oct 2006)

Apex... my eyes are much better than 20/20, I just earned my 4-year honours B.A. from the University of Totonto in English and Mathematics... and still, I've been waiting more than 11 months to do my medical and interview because my recruitment centre hasn't yet gathered my previous medical records (I served in the Army Reserves seven years ago) to process my application.


----------



## J_Muir (3 Oct 2006)

Elwood said:
			
		

> Apex... my eyes are much better than 20/20, I just earned my 4-year honours B.A. from the University of Totonto in English and Mathematics... and still, I've been waiting more than 11 months to do my medical and interview because my recruitment centre hasn't yet gathered my previous medical records (I served in the Army Reserves seven years ago) to process my application.



That's brutal man, I feel for you. I'll be in you position in just under 2 years when I'm done my degeee - hope it doesnt take that long for me. I'm gonna go see a recruiter this summer to see if i should/can get some of the testing and medical stuff done early so when school is finished, the wait time will be reduced.

Geeze, 11 months of sitting around is disgraceful. Good luck man, I wish you the best.


----------

