• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Time to Send CF Fast Air to AFG?

KevinB said:
C&P -- Judging by both your comments and your profile you have ZERO experience in the Afghan conflict.

Duey and Teddy R are VERY experienced in this manner -- and other us have have had/still have our boots on the ground.
Your to quick to judge people's experience. I relate to the Afghan conflict throuth the death of Ainsworth Dyer. My Friend, who grew up in My neighborhood, and joined My regiment. He was one of the best soldiers we ever had in the 48th, and he's dead because of an airstrike gone wrong.  Thats my experience with Afghanistan.      
 
C and P said:
Your to quick to judge people's experience. I relate to the Afghan conflict throuth the death of Ainsworth Dyer. My Friend, who grew up in My neighborhood, and joined My regiment. He was one of the best soldiers we ever had in the 48th, and he's dead because of an airstrike gone wrong.  Thats my experience with Afghanistan.

Considering that the "friendly fire incident" was not a case of CAS by a FAC, but rather an errant pilot (who was duly chastised by his chain of command) your relation is poorly placed.  Would you scorn the use of a rifle (or MG/or Tank/or whatever) if someone was hit with it in the chaos of the battlefield?

As you reveal more I see your criticism fits the earlier guess I made - empty.
 
Infanteer said:
Considering that the "friendly fire incident" was not a case of CAS by a FAC, but rather an errant pilot (who was duly chastised by his chain of command) your relation is poorly placed.  Would you scorn the use of a rifle (or MG/or Tank/or whatever) if someone was hit with it in the chaos of the battlefield?

As you reveal more I see your criticism fits the earlier guess I made - empty.

Infanteer

I think the door is now closed.  I just hope C and P got his foot out before you slammed it.

Opinions are like a holes everyones got one and some are bigger then others.  This is an issue that will not be solved on this or any other Form.  But i have to agree Teddy and Duey do seem to have the most knowledge on the matter at hand.  And that is placing CF-18's in theater, and how this will affect the troops on the grounds ability to call in Canadian air for a Canadian mission.  I personally don't think it would help nor would it hinder our troops ability to do their job. 

I can't remember who said it but they are probably right that if they did drop munitions that caused civilian causalities you could see the end of the CF-18 program.  To back this up look at the 8 billion dollar plan the feds just but forward.  Nothing in there in the way of fighters, even though we are down to around 60 operational 18's for a country that is a lot bigger then an American Aircraft carrier.

Just my MOO
 
C and P said:
Your to quick to judge people's experience. I relate to the Afghan conflict throuth the death of Ainsworth Dyer. My Friend, who grew up in My neighborhood, and joined My regiment. He was one of the best soldiers we ever had in the 48th, and he's dead because of an airstrike gone wrong.  Thats my experience with Afghanistan.      

In that case I suggest you STFU and stop showing your ass. 

As Infanteer pointed out - that was a specific error by the pilot  (I would call a criminal error- but that is neither her not there to this issue).  As a former Patricia the April 17 2002 bombing also is an issue with me.  However I truly believe that more coalition lives have been saved to to use of Airpower.

 
My to response was to the statement that I had no experience with airpower in afghanistan.  That was my experience.  I lost my friend .  Why is that talking out of my ass? Why do you think your exxperiencess invalidate mine?
 
Your reacting emotionaly, and not looking at the facts - my experience is irrelavant to that point.

However I've seen the Dutch Apache's use much less restraint that US AirPower - I've also seen the effects of US AirPower and glad it was around.

Teddy and Duey pointed out the fact that just adding Hornets to the Coaltion CAS pool (which we would have to do) would not get us anything more.  The US AirForce Combat Controllers have had a great deal of experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan -- they get attached to "other assets" as well so you can be sure they are up to snuff.

Simply wanting to add a Canada stamp on certain operations is fine - except when it will serve no purpose and potentially expose the troops to greater harm.

The added fact that you have never had boots on the ground here means that you really dont understand that these people dont have an understanding of us a distinct group - but are simply Westerners which equals American's

 
C and P said:
Why do you think your experiences invalidate mine?

Oh probably because Kev here has been actually near a FAS situation, and may have in fact requested a few FA runs in his day.

It's not so much that his experience invalidates yours so much as it simply trumps it.
 
I'm reacting to you posting "STFU."



EDITED by Staff to Correct meaning of post..

 
C and P

That's was probably not the smartest move you could have made, in fact it's probably up there in the dumbest.

US air power saves lives it's that simple, for every innocent killed dozens of soldiers are saved I myself will take those odds, in fact I'm willing to gamble my life on it and have before. I think you need to get some serious operational experience before you jump in here and debate from a postion of "My friend died because of...." cause if that's your only point it's not a valid one. I could from that perspective argue that the CF took away my friend by putting him in ILTIS and as such they are responsible. But that argument doesn't wash now does it?
 
Quote from some U.S. commander in Vietnam:  "We had to bomb the village to save it."
 
C &P - word of advice - from experience on this front

If you're arguing from a position of a relative lack of first hand knowledge, you'd most likely be better to back up anything you say with the words of someone who is experienced, extremely well trained, or with some type of well done study or article - because if you encouter people who do have first hand experience and disagree, they will, rightfully, call you on it. Otherwise it is best to identify it as your opinion, that way it can be debated as such (ie IMO this is best because a) b) c), that way others can debate those points with you and you don't end up with  :argument: and STFU).

Not telling you want to do, just telling you what has seemed to work for me.

These guys are usually pretty respectable.
 
HitorMiss said:
C and P

That's was probably not the smartest move you could have made, in fact it's probably up there in the dumbest.

US air power saves lives it's that simple, for every innocent killed dozens of soldiers are saved I myself will take those odds, in fact I'm willing to gamble my life on it and have before. I think you need to get some serious operational experience before you jump in here and debate from a postion of "My friend died because of...." cause if that's your only point it's not a valid one. I could from that perspective argue that the CF took away my friend by putting him in ILTIS and as such they are responsible. But that argument doesn't wash now does it?

Excelent points,  the only thing i would dis-agree with is that operational experience or not, I know my life and the lives of my fellow troops are more important then the lifes of my enemy.  

  So in this conflict/war/peace making action, however you want to dice it, calling in Air support be it Canadian, American or even Chinese to soften up an area before we go in to make our job easier is all part of the game.  You don't want to play put your weapons down and come out.  War is not an Olympic sport, it is not supposed to be fair, there is no silver medal for finishing second.  It is a matter of us vs them and if we have better tools then we use them to win.  This is what saves lifes.  Yes it is sad when civillians die it is always sad when someone who really and truely has nothing to do with matter at hand dies.  But to say that it would be less likely to happen if we had Canadian Airpower in place is a really hard and big pill to swallow.  Yes the world sees as being peace keepers and the such but our bullets kill just like the American ones, same with our bombs, last time I looked they were just as deadly as the ones being droppoed by American aircraft.
 
[US air power saves lives it's that simple]

And cigarettes cure lung cancer.
 
You two are arguing like a couple of little girls.  If you don't have any constructive arguments, go troll in some other site's 'doll house'.
 
Nothing less could be expected especially when opinions get heated logic and common sense get boiled right out of the equation.
 
Back to topic....

I fail to see a difference in wether it's the US Air Force or the Dutch or our own planes that drop the ordinance to help support ground action so long as it is there when needed. People I talk to who are over there right now have never not had air cover when it was called for that's also why we have the TIC net on our radios.

It would honestly surprise me if we did send C18's and they were only tasked with supporting CF operations. I would expect that it would be more likely that those aircraft would be added to to the mix and sent here and there for support of all ground activity. Don't get me wrong though I do indeed support sending our planes if it was a feasible plan for their sustainment and their use.

*edit for spelling and grammer*
 
HEY wait a minute Geogre did you just call me a troll  :'(

Ok humor off LOL  :dontpanic:
 
I think it would be nice to see CDN CF18's there but working with the rest of Nato not just for CDNS. Plus it would enhance their combat experince. My 2 cents.,.. :cdn: :salute:
 
couchcommander said:
C &P - word of advice - from experience on this front

If you're arguing from a position of a relative lack of first hand knowledge, you'd most likely be better to back up anything you say with the words of someone who is experienced, extremely well trained, or with some type of well done study or article - because if you encouter people who do have first hand experience and disagree, they will, rightfully, call you on it. Otherwise it is best to identify it as your opinion, that way it can be debated as such (ie IMO this is best because a) b) c), that way others can debate those points with you and you don't end up with  :argument: and STFU).

Not telling you want to do, just telling you what has seemed to work for me.

These guys are usually pretty respectable.
10-4. I hear ya.
 
Back
Top