A
aesop081
Guest
Harry Potter said:
The air force doesnt contribute eh ?
So what you are saying is that we dont need a modern fighter to do this mission ?
No, this is your opinion, not fact
F-22 or F-35
- Thread starter guns_and_roses
- Start date
- Status
The air force doesnt contribute eh ?
So what you are saying is that we dont need a modern fighter to do this mission ?
No, this is your opinion, not fact
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Dimsum said:
And it must be the army flying the Globemaster into Afghanistan, too (2 1/2 weeks after we got the first one) ... wtf?
Harry Potter said:
Yeah, right.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
Harry Potter said:
Hey finally someone who knows what he is talking about!
I agree with this statement, its true the Air Force has to stop loafing around and get up off its butt and do something other than fly desks.
Final statement ----> Its Opposite day, and I think Harry Potter is a great guy
Sarcasm aside those who can see the big picture, know that every element is busy, and we all do our bit. Just because the AF doesn't have 18's over Kandahar doesn't mean that the AF is sitting here with their feet up.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Nonetheless there are no Auroras in Afstan (and who knows elsewhere) 
:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/54610.45.html
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/66394.105.html
Mark
Ottawa
:http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/54610.45.html
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/66394.105.html
Mark
Ottawa
A
aesop081
Guest
MarkOttawa said:Nonetheless there are no Auroras in Afstan (and who knows elsewhere)
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/54610.45.html
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/66394.105.html
Mark
Ottawa
And that has what to do with this thread or the opinion expressed by Harry potter ?
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
CDN Aviator: from Dimsum (sorry did not make the source clear):
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/68471/post-649448.html#msg649448
Mark
Ottawa
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/68471/post-649448.html#msg649448
Mark
Ottawa
A
aesop081
Guest
MarkOttawa said:
Gotcha......i missed that in his post
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Maybe stretching here but Auroras did their time on Operation Apollo (in the "Arab-Persian Gulf region"): http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/cp140/history_e.asp (though I'm sure CDN Aviator could school me on that subject!)
Dimsum would have been correct to say "Hercs and C17s in Afghanistan as well as Auroras and Sea Kings in the Gulf" ... I think his point stands.
Dimsum would have been correct to say "Hercs and C17s in Afghanistan as well as Auroras and Sea Kings in the Gulf" ... I think his point stands.
A
aesop081
Guest
I_am_John_Galt said:
Not much else to say realy. I was not there but they did what they were sent there to do and never missed a mission for any reason.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
The topic is about F-35 or F-22 and my post has to be read within that context. I maintain that there is no need to buy a $100M airplane if all we do with it are sovereignty patrols in Canada.
The time is long gone that we buy kit just to park it and look pretty. If we don't use it, we don't need it.
By the way, I apologize for those air transport crews. My post was twisted out of context and used by others to pretend that your hard work was not recognized to its just value. For the record, if it wasn't for the air transport crews, the Air force wouldn't have a whole lot to show for itself. I know that the rotary wing guys are chomping at the bit to go too. I only wish that the fighter guys were a little more eager to provide CAS to our own guys.
I love that we got C-17 because we are using them to their potential. I love that we are getting new hercs, because we are using our old hercs to their potential. I fully agree that the Sea Kings need to be replaced because they sure earned it. We could use upgraded Auroras, but the Air Force, in its wisdom, decided that they were not needed. But there is this great push to buy the F-35, and I simply cannot see why the Air Force needs such a platform because they have not shown any interest in deploying F-18 in the ATO for CAS missions. I would much rather see all this money spent on more hercs, or perhaps attack helicopters. Flown by the Air Force of course.
There, i hope this clarifies things. You can all un-circle the wagons guys.
The time is long gone that we buy kit just to park it and look pretty. If we don't use it, we don't need it.
By the way, I apologize for those air transport crews. My post was twisted out of context and used by others to pretend that your hard work was not recognized to its just value. For the record, if it wasn't for the air transport crews, the Air force wouldn't have a whole lot to show for itself. I know that the rotary wing guys are chomping at the bit to go too. I only wish that the fighter guys were a little more eager to provide CAS to our own guys.
I love that we got C-17 because we are using them to their potential. I love that we are getting new hercs, because we are using our old hercs to their potential. I fully agree that the Sea Kings need to be replaced because they sure earned it. We could use upgraded Auroras, but the Air Force, in its wisdom, decided that they were not needed. But there is this great push to buy the F-35, and I simply cannot see why the Air Force needs such a platform because they have not shown any interest in deploying F-18 in the ATO for CAS missions. I would much rather see all this money spent on more hercs, or perhaps attack helicopters. Flown by the Air Force of course.
There, i hope this clarifies things. You can all un-circle the wagons guys.
A
aesop081
Guest
Harry Potter said:
Based on what knowledge/experience ?
Sure the transport guys do alot of the AF's work. I cant deny it. But the rest of the Air Force has other assigned tasks. I'm sure SAR is busy doing its job and doing it well. The LRP comunity has been busy doing counter-drug ops at home and abroad as well as surveillance of our naval aproaches ( are you areguing it doesnt need to be done ?). Sea King guys are busy supporting the Navy wherever they are in the world. We have AECs and AC Ops at various locations around the world working ATC and AWACS. Your comments are nothing short of un-educated oxygen theivery.
I doubt that there is a single fighter pilot in the CF who wouldnt rather be in the sandbox dropping bombs instead of being in cool pool beating the circuit.
A
aesop081
Guest
Slackeur said:
Indeed. All those "bombs dropped" markings on the jets signified the number of wineries succesfully conquered.
;D
- Reaction score
- 13,262
- Points
- 1,010
Yeah....No. It does not clarify things. You are the one who started this by dropping the "Air Force is sitting around doing nothing" bomb, then started backpedalling when someone more knowledgeable than you called you on your ignorance. You are the one who has greatly oversimplified the Aurora replacement issue (hint: it wasn't an Air Force decision to not replace it in a timely fashion). You are the one making (obviously) ill-informed statements about fighter force employment and fighter replacement issues. Finally, you try and curry favour by stating that you are happy that the Sea King is being replaced because "it earned it". Is that how you view defence policy and procurement? A fleet or capability has to "earn" replacement? What about capability based procurement? What about deciding what our doctrinal needs, strategic interests or national goals are, then buying capability? Even I would not be brazen enough to call for a Sea King replacement, if the facts did not support it. Even by your own lame measure, what makes you think the CF-18 fleet has not "earned" replacement? Germany and North American Defence during the Cold War; Gulf War 1; Kosovo and all of the Post-911 missions not good enough for you?
Now, I'm not saying the CF-18 must be replaced by the F-35- this is not my area of expertise (note what I just did there, Harry). What is pretty clear is, that, unless we want to be outmatched in our own air space and not be able to go abroad in support of our national goals, we will need something a bit more sophisticated than a used F-18 (that we would get from, whom, exactly?).
Have a good day, Harry. Please enjoy Army.ca. Who knows, you might even learn something.
A
aesop081
Guest
SeaKingTacco said:
Same here. I'm not "hot and heavy" for the F-35 and i'm not a fighter expert. Personaly speaking i think that Typhoon would be a good fit but thats just an opinion.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I made my point and judging by the emotion that it has stirred and by how some of you extract single elements of my posts insted of looking at the entire argument, I can tell that I hit a sore spot. You know it, I know it, and you know that I know and that's what kills you. I have been around long enough to know better than some of you the past contributions of the Air Force. Some was for show, some was for real, and hats off to those guys where it is due. But a lot of you are in for a big surprise if you think that you will convince Treasury Board to caught up $5B for a capability your leadership has been unwilling to commit to WAR. Quit basking is the past guys. Your leadership has seen fit to pass more than once on an opportunity to deliver REAL kinetic effects in Afghanistan. So when money will be dolled out, it will be assigned to elements that are NEEDED and familiar. Cargo, fix wing SAR, Tac Hel. Now is the time to be needed, now is the time to be known. The future leadership of the CF and of DND is being formed TODAY in Afghanistan. The Army is there, the Navy is there, the Air Transport guys are there and everyone knows that the Tac Hel guys want to be there. The CF is learning to fight a WAR with someone else's CAS because its own Air Force declined to send fighters. You don't need F-35 to go to Afghanistan. Why are you not there now?? If you're not there now, why would we believe that you will go later? Come on, get your head out of the sand!
- Status
