[Migs]

http://www.copyright-free-pictures.org.uk/USAF/c-17-globemaster.jpg

Bravo Harper!!! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Canada's New Government Delivers for Canadian Forces: Awards Contract for Strategic Airlift

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada - February 2, 2007

OTTAWA — The Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Defence, together with the Honourable Michael M. Fortier, Minister of Public Works, and the Honourable Maxime Bernier, Minister of Industry today announced The Boeing Company has been awarded the contract to supply strategic airlift aircraft to the Canadian Forces.

The agreement fulfills a commitment by Canada's New Government to pursue defence procurement initiatives that equip and strengthen our military and provide economic benefits across the country.

“Canada's New Government is dedicated to meeting the urgent needs of our Canadian Forces,” said Minister O'Connor. “Today's announcement is the first step to ensure that our dedicated men and women in uniform have the equipment they need.”

“Our government has delivered on our commitment to fair and open procurement and to our Canadian Forces,” added Minister Fortier. “While ensuring a win for the Canadian Forces, we have done that in a way that ensures Canadian taxpayers get the best value for their money.”

“We have worked hard to deliver real benefits to Canadian industry as a result of our defence procurements,” said Minister Bernier. “This agreement represents tremendous opportunity for Canadian companies to compete and stay at the forefront of the global industry.”

Canada's New Government is purchasing four strategic lift aircraft to provide rapid, reliable and flexible transport of large amounts of passengers and equipment over long distances in response to domestic emergencies and international crises. This strategic lift capability will be a “Canada First” asset – to be used on our own terms and at times of our own choosing. Canada will no longer have to join the international queue, negotiating against other countries for scarce commercial options, to fulfill its responsibilities. At home, Canada will be better able to protect Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including domestic response capabilities and reaching out to all our communities, including in the Arctic.

Strategic airlift will also enhance Canada's ability to provide humanitarian assistance in any part of the world, as well as increase our disaster assistance response capability. It will ensure that our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan receive the supplies and equipment they need to get the job done.

“These new aircraft will have an immediate impact on how we can support operations,” said General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff. “They will increase our capacity to cover vast distances with bigger loads, fewer crews and less stopovers. In addition, they will alleviate some of the workload carried out by our aging Herc fleet and that which we paid to lease.”

The acquisition of these aircraft has been conducted through a competitive process known as an Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN), which identifies the Government's intention to contract with a specific supplier and also gives all potential suppliers the opportunity to demonstrate that they also can meet the Canadian Forces' mandatory capabilities for strategic airlift.

Under Canada's procurement policy, contractors must undertake quality economic activities in advanced technology sectors of the Canadian economy. These activities must be an amount equal to 100% of the contract value. Boeing has already identified more than $570 Million in contracts and in late-stage negotiations with Canadian companies from coast to coast, and the company will announce details of these contracts in the coming weeks.

Canada's New Government is working to ensure that these procurements deliver maximum, high-quality economic benefits to Canada, and that Canadian firms are well positioned to play significant roles as these projects progress. The estimated total cost for this strategic lift aircraft project acquisition is $1.8 billion, plus an estimated contract value of $1.6 billion for 20 years of in-service support.

After following the proper procurement process, future contracts will also be awarded for tactical airlift, medium-to-heavy-lift helicopters, joint support ships and medium-sized logistics trucks. For each of these contracts, companies will be required to invest in the Canadian economy dollar for dollar what they receive from procurement contracts, resulting in approximately $13 Billion in opportunities for Canada's aerospace and defence industry.
______________________________________________________________________________

Fantastic news for our Armed Forces. Now the Super Herc's and Chinook's are next. :cheers:

http://www.mustangmods.com/ims/u/2081/7276/140211.jpg

[harls]

I know some people at Boeing in Winnipeg that are gonna be smiling!

[chris]

Good news!

[Migs]

Here is an artists rendering of what the C-17 will look like in Canadian markings.:tup:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/photorelease/q1/MSF07-1694-1.jpg

[malek]

its not like its gonna be built there, but in California.

[Migs]

its not like its gonna be built there, but in California.
Yup they are going to be built in Long Beach California with Boeing re-investing in the advanced technology sectors of the Canadian economy. Nothing but great news for this LONG overdue procurement.:tup:

[Waterlooson]

I hate to rain on the parade, but why the hell do we need those monsters? Primarily to fly around the world and enforce US foreign policy?

[PhilippeMtl]

http://www.comfort.navy.mil/Baltic/images/images/Dancing%205_jpg.jpg

[The Chemist]

I hate to rain on the parade, but why the hell do we need those monsters? Primarily to fly around the world and enforce US foreign policy?

There aren't enough of these :rolleyes: in the world to respond to that comment.

The Canadian Forces needs these to have control over its own deployment to trouble spots around the world, rather than relying on rentals and leases that may or may not be available when necessary. Remember when it took DART two weeks after the Boxing Day Tsunami to deploy to the area, or a similar amount of time to deploy to Pakistan after that major earthquake? If we'd had these C-17s then, we could have had our troops on the ground where they were needed most within two or three days.

They will also help with the mission in Afghanistan, which once again, is not enforcing US foreign policy but rather carrying out a UN sanctioned mission of security and rebuilding in that war torn country.

[vid]

Actually, we use them to help with our peace keeping missions and so that the Disaster Releif Team can get around the world without having to as Big Brother America for a lift. :)

In short, it's making us more independent, and giving a big boost to our peace making and humanitarian efforts globally. To say it's enforcing US foreign policy is wrong and anti-American. That simple isn't what they are for.

Might I remind the public that the democratically elected government of Afghanistan and a good many of their people want us to help them fight the Taliban.

[PhilippeMtl]

There aren't enough of these :rolleyes: in the world to respond to that comment.

The Canadian Forces needs these to have control over its own deployment to trouble spots around the world, rather than relying on rentals and leases that may or may not be available when necessary. Remember when it took DART two weeks after the Boxing Day Tsunami to deploy to the area, or a similar amount of time to deploy to Pakistan after that major earthquake? If we'd had these C-17s then, we could have had our troops on the ground where they were needed most within two or three days.

They will also help with the mission in Afghanistan, which once again, is not enforcing US foreign policy but rather carrying out a UN sanctioned mission of security and rebuilding in that war torn country.

http://kappachapter.org/~kevinh/photos/redneck.jpg

[Waterlooson]

^^^LMAO

Actually, I was mainly trying to stimulate discussion (Devil's advocate)... I thought The Chemist's answer was pretty good even though I do think Harper kowtows to Bush to a significant degree.

[vid]

How though? There hasn't really been that much sucking up that I've seen. They haven't even mentioned the US much, it's mostly been liberal bashing and sucking up to Quebec.

What's so bad about sucking up to the US anyway? They are by far the richest and most powerful country on earth. It can't be that bad can it?

[ErickMontreal]

Where this shit will be built ?

Do not forget, God bless Canada!

[graupner]

Under Canada's procurement policy, contractors must undertake quality economic activities in advanced technology sectors of the Canadian economy. These activities must be an amount equal to 100% of the contract value.



I wonder what kind of "investments" they're going to do that are worth 13 Billions.
By curiosity, what kind of facilities do they have in Winnipeg? what is its main role?

[malek]

I hope the west will shut the fuck up now for those "stolen" cf18 contracts "given" to Bombardier since most of those investments will go to the tiny aerospace industry in winnipeg.

[baggab]

I hope the west will shut the fuck up now for those "stolen" cf18 contracts "given" to Bombardier since most of those investments will go to the tiny aerospace industry in winnipeg.

Don't bring the whole west into your argument.

[ErickMontreal]

It`s always the same old story in this country

[Waterlooson]

How though? There hasn't really been that much sucking up that I've seen. They haven't even mentioned the US much, it's mostly been liberal bashing and sucking up to Quebec.

What's so bad about sucking up to the US anyway? They are by far the richest and most powerful country on earth. It can't be that bad can it?

Show me just one example where Canada's foreign policy (under Harper) has conflicted with that of the Bush administration.... then there was Canada's caving into the US on softwood lumber even though we spent millions to win the legal argument.

Under Bush, the US has refused to listen to any of its allies that have had significant issues with its policies and did only what it felt was in its own narrow self-interests.... and lets not forget the US is currently the most hated country on the planet. I for one, don't care for my country to be associated with some of its foreign policies. The US is getting it's comeuppance, and if Canada isn't careful with its policies.... so will we.

[The Chemist]

I hope the west will shut the fuck up now for those "stolen" cf18 contracts "given" to Bombardier since most of those investments will go to the tiny aerospace industry in winnipeg.

come off it. it's not like quebec's getting nothing out of this deal. :rolleyes:

[Mister F]

Canada's New Government
Does anyone else shudder when they hear this?

[e909]

Show me just one example where Canada's foreign policy (under Harper) has conflicted with that of the Bush administration....
The Arar fiasco?
The northwest passage?
Passports?
To name a few...

then there was Canada's caving into the US on softwood lumber even though we spent millions to win the legal argument.

Opportunity cost.

Under Bush, the US has refused to listen to any of its allies that have had significant issues with its policies and did only what it felt was in its own narrow self-interests.... and lets not forget the US is currently the most hated country on the planet. I for one, don't care for my country to be associated with some of its foreign policies. The US is getting it's comeuppance, and if Canada isn't careful with its policies.... so will we.
So we should dissociate ourselves from good policies to make ourselves look different than the United States? Grow the fuck up.

[Waterlooson]

The Arar fiasco?
The northwest passage?
Passports?
To name a few...



You don't know the difference between "foreign policy" and "domestic policy". I wasn't criticizing US domestic policy (ie. passports). There is no "northwest passage", so that's a moot point and Arar was primarily Canada's fault.... the US may still reverse itself because of the Democrats.



So we should dissociate ourselves from good policies to make ourselves look different than the United States?

I didn't say that.... I said that I don't want Canada to be associated with some of the foreign policies of the US. Read more carefully in the future - please.
Grow the fuck up.

First, follow your own advice Kevin (nice photo BTW). :koko:

Second, is there any crime or misadventure that Bush can engage in that will cause you to withdraw your unrequited love for and devotion to his leadership? Would you support the nuking of Tehran or perhaps North Korea if Bush thought it was a good idea?

[e909]

You don't know the difference between "foreign policy" and "domestic policy". I wasn't criticizing US domestic policy (ie. passports) other than its failure to abide by the provisions of the NAFTA - which it voluntarily signed. There is no "northwest passage", so that's a moot point and Arar was primarily Canada's fault.... the US may still reverse itself because of the Democrats.
There is nothing domestic about the passport issue. It may have been a domestic decision by the United States, but it's still an international issue.

You don't agree with the northwest passage, but how does that make it a moot point? It's an international dispute.

The US did violate NAFTA, but was it worth it to keep dragging it out through the courts, which would ultimately cost our businesses more? This is up for debate, I agree.


I didn't say that.... I said that I don't want Canada to be associated with some of the foreign policies of the US. Read more carefully in the future - please.

Well, you did say it in a thread that related to purchasing airplanes for the military. Purchasing planes doesn't change our foreign policy one bit. It makes us less dependent on the Americans, if anything..


Second, is there any crime or misadventure that Bush can engage in that will cause you to withdraw your unrequited love for and devotion to his leadership? Would you support the nuking of Tehran or perhaps North Korea if Bush thought it was a good idea?
Where did this come from? :shrug: Was this directed at me or something?

[Waterlooson]

There is nothing domestic about the passport issue. It may have been a domestic decision by the United States, but it's still an international issue.

You still don't get it.... as far as I'm concerned the US has every right to decide if it wants to require passports to gain entry.... that is strictly US domestic policy even if it affects foreigners.

You don't agree with the northwest passage, but how does that make it a moot point? It's an international dispute.

The reason commercial shipping isn't passing through Canada's arctic is because there is no "passage".... when/if the area becomes navigable, then US policy may become revelent.... but for now it isn't.

[e909]

The reason commercial shipping isn't passing through Canada's arctic is because there is no "passage".... when/if the area becomes navigable, then US policy may become revelent.... but for now it isn't.
The problem is that history does influence these things. If we make no efforts to control them and assert them now, it could be deemed that they are truely international when it opens up.

This is still irrelevant to the main point. There are foreign policies are agreed and disagreed upon. Canada, as a nation, has very similar beliefs to those of the Americans, so it's not very surprising that our policies have almost always reflected likewise.

[Migs]

I hope the west will shut the fuck up now for those "stolen" cf18 contracts "given" to Bombardier since most of those investments will go to the tiny aerospace industry in winnipeg.
Thats funny cause its the Quebecers doing all the whining these days....:haha:

[Migs]

^^^LMAO

Actually, I was mainly trying to stimulate discussion (Devil's advocate)... I thought The Chemist's answer was pretty good even though I do think Harper kowtows to Bush to a significant degree.
Now there is a load of horsecrap if I've even seen one. Just because our leader is trying to be on good terms with our #1 trading partner and our neighbour, it automatically makes 'Liberals' think as though they have an argument the current Govt......too damn funny. :haha:

[malek]

come off it. it's not like quebec's getting nothing out of this deal. :rolleyes:

un GROS 30%:rolleyes:

[Migs]

un GROS 30%:rolleyes:
Just like a Quebecer to be pissed off about getting their fair share....:rolleyes:

[WhipperSnapper]

Do not forget, God bless Canada!


do we need to adapt the whole American 'god Bless' obsession to Canada? I'm not against religion or anything but, I find this expression more often than not being used as an excuse to do nasty things

Nice planes but I'd rather see the Canadian Forces get their finances in order before being given more pricey equipment to use and maintain

[Waterlooson]

Now there is a load of horsecrap if I've even seen one. Just because our leader is trying to be on good terms with our #1 trading partner and our neighbour, it automatically makes 'Liberals' think as though they have an argument the current Govt......too damn funny. :haha:


Yes, I find it damn funny too.... Harper thinks he has to be Bush's woman to to be a "good neighbour".:haha:

[The Chemist]

un GROS 30%:rolleyes:

Hmm, Quebec accounts for less than 25% of Canada's population. 30% is MORE than their fair share, and it's the largest single share in the country. Is Quebec never happy with what they get?

[Migs]

Yes, I find it damn funny too.... Harper thinks he has to be Bush's woman to to be a "good neighbour".:haha:
How exactly is he being 'Bush's Woman'???

Damn its funny how Liberals always try and paint a bogus picture only to have the ink fall on their lap

[Waterlooson]

How exactly is he being 'Bush's Woman'???

Damn its funny how Liberals always try and paint a bogus picture only to have the ink fall on their lap

I'm not a Liberal... and I have no use for the other parties either... to me, they are all nuts. :haha:

[malek]

Hmm, Quebec accounts for less than 25% of Canada's population. 30% is MORE than their fair share, and it's the largest single share in the country. Is Quebec never happy with what they get?

population means nothing, its the aerospatial industry size that counts, 55% of the whole country.

Boeing will invest in the atlantic or other parts of Canada where there's no aero. industry just to respect population ratio... that makes even less of a sense:rolleyes:

Its like asking an automaker to invest 25% in Quebec because we have 25% of the population, even with no auto industry.:haha:

[Xelebes]

do we need to adapt the whole American 'god Bless' obsession to Canada? I'm not against religion or anything but, I find this expression more often than not being used as an excuse to do nasty things

Nice planes but I'd rather see the Canadian Forces get their finances in order before being given more pricey equipment to use and maintain

God Bless is used in any English speaking nation. It's just that the US made an anthem around that phrase.

[Xelebes]

population means nothing, its the aerospatial industry size that counts, 55% of the whole country.

Boeing will invest in the atlantic or other parts of Canada where there's no aero. industry just to respect population ratio... that makes even less of a sense:rolleyes:

Its like asking an automaker to invest 25% in Quebec because we have 25% of the population, even with no auto industry.:haha:


It's called developing the industry elsewhere and encouraging factories to be built, making places that don't have that many engineering jobs have that extra few engineering jobs.

[vid]

The reason commercial shipping isn't passing through Canada's arctic is because there is no "passage".... when/if the area becomes navigable, then US policy may become revelent.... but for now it isn't.

Like with Indonesia (look at a map) the United States will probably team up with other countries and, regardless of Canada's decisions, try to get the UN or some other body to recognise the NWP as international water.

Even though Canada surrounds it, there is still a possibility that much of it can be taken away. The time to prevent this is now. Procrastination doesn't work. Ask the liberal government. If they didn't dilly-dolly their responsabilities and break their promises, they'd still be in office.

And if they bought these planes instead of the Conservatives, you'd probably be cheering for them.

Considering Manitoba has the second largest aerospace industry in the country this isn't really much of a problem. Quebec just seems to be jealous. :P

Kind of like the rich kid complaining that his neighbour got a car, while he doesn't have one, even though he's richer. Makes little sense to me.

[VANRIDERFAN]

population means nothing, its the aerospatial industry size that counts, 55% of the whole country.

Boeing will invest in the atlantic or other parts of Canada where there's no aero. industry just to respect population ratio... that makes even less of a sense:rolleyes:

Its like asking an automaker to invest 25% in Quebec because we have 25% of the population, even with no auto industry.:haha:


Boeing may invest more with their existing partners at Bristol (Manitoba) and other places than with Bombardier. If that happens well boo bloody hoo. It is time that the Canadian public demands more value for money than this stupid regional industrial benfits crap that get tossed around. In addition isn't Pratt and Whitney based in Montreal? Gee and what type of engines are on the C17?

Oh BTW since you folks in Quebec are so peaceful and anti-military shouldn't you be glad that you are not contributing to the expansion of the Canadian military-industrial complex? Grow up, with the demise of the Liberals your days of being the spoiled brat of Canada are hopefully over.

[big W]

population means nothing, its the aerospatial industry size that counts, 55% of the whole country.

Boeing will invest in the atlantic or other parts of Canada where there's no aero. industry just to respect population ratio... that makes even less of a sense:rolleyes:

Its like asking an automaker to invest 25% in Quebec because we have 25% of the population, even with no auto industry.:haha:


You are 100% correct in this. The government should not say where the money goes and how much, so long as it is someplace in Canada. There should be no government imposed quotas on anything which in some cases are of benefit to certain regions to the detriment of others. For example this deal limiting the money to some regions, which in some ways meant Quebec will get less than it would if it were entirely free market, with the benefit to Winnipeg and in other cases such as the dairly board quotas with Quebec having 40% of the domestic market thus not allowing other regions to grow their industries, which in some cases could be significant (AB, SK). This stupid government intervention in the market makes things less efficient, which in the end ends up hurting us all and makes for political problems as well. But then again maybe the governments want these issues so as to play off one region against another and we the public fall in line and eat it up.

[trueviking]

I hope the west will shut the fuck up now for those "stolen" cf18 contracts "given" to Bombardier since most of those investments will go to the tiny aerospace industry in winnipeg.

pfft....get off your high horse, you clown....quebec's aerospace industry wouldnt exist at all if the federal government didnt pour billions of dollars in handouts to lame duck companies like bombardier every year in an attempt to placate the assholes who use the threat of separation as blackmail to get way, way more than their share of government investment.

air canada is there for the same reason....it was put there when it was government owned to buy fucking sparatist votes....just separate already and we will see how well companies like bombardier stand up on their own without the other 25 million people in this country continually paying to prop it up.....then you will come crawling back begging for your 30%.

[trueviking]

Its like asking an automaker to invest 25% in Quebec because we have 25% of the population, even with no auto industry.:haha:

but winnipeg does have an aerospace industry....the third largest in the country....your comparasin is bogus. .:haha:

last time i checked, the tax dollars used to buy these planes was not taken proportionately from the areas with aerospace industries...it came from all areas of the country, so all areas should benefit accordingly.....this isnt private investment...it is government money buying government hardware.

i love quebec and dearly want it part of my country forever.....and i think that the expansion of our military is a suspect priority, but seriously, your comments are exactly why the rest of the country thinks the people of quebec so often act like spoiled brats.

[Migs]

pfft....get off your high horse, you clown....quebec's aerospace industry wouldnt exist at all if the federal government didnt pour billions of dollars in handouts to lame duck companies like bombardier every year in an attempt to placate the assholes who use the threat of separation as blackmail to get way, way more than their share of government investment.

air canada is there for the same reason....it was put there when it was government owned to buy fucking sparatist votes....just separate already and we will see how well companies like bombardier stand up on their own.....then you will come crawling back begging for your 30%.
Game......Set.....Match!!!:cheers:

[zerokarma]

Overall I think this is a good purchase, its not too little and its not too much and it is something that will be a lot more practical in use then other potential purchases.

[Migs]

population means nothing, its the aerospatial industry size that counts, 55% of the whole country.

Boeing will invest in the atlantic or other parts of Canada where there's no aero. industry just to respect population ratio... that makes even less of a sense:rolleyes:

Its like asking an automaker to invest 25% in Quebec because we have 25% of the population, even with no auto industry.:haha:
As the Government falsely propped up Bombardier (in Quebec) in the Aerospace Industry, we saw them buy out De Havilland and put the Dash Series and Turbo Prop development in the Trash, as well as the disappearance of A.V. Roe and other non-Quebec Aviation Companies, Quebec may just have that market share.

Our fine Aviation history is going down the tubes, every day the Government gives Bombardier money. What have we got back in return? Definitely nothing on any of the Loans they have received. The death of many of our manufacturing plants outside of Quebec. Crap in the way of Trucks, Rail Cars, and Aircraft......Seadoo and Skidoo are about it for their success.

Good money after Bad.

To hell with the Quebecers....they don't even deserve the 30%.

[graupner]

malek, why do you even mind arguing in these kind of threads???

[Boris2k7]

Anyways...

I think that this is a good investment, getting these planes. It will help us increase our flexibility and reduce our dependence on other nations (notably the U.S.) to move our troops around. While military priorities are always suspect, we should not be denying the Forces the tools they need to do their jobs simply due to political priorities. +1 Point to Mr. Harper...

[malek]

malek, why do you even mind arguing in these kind of threads???

i'm asking myself why, most of the posts here are baseless.

[ScottFromCalgary]

Oh BTW since you folks in Quebec are so peaceful and anti-military shouldn't you be glad that you are not contributing to the expansion of the Canadian military-industrial complex? Grow up, with the demise of the Liberals your days of being the spoiled brat of Canada are hopefully over.

Unfortunately this doesn't seem likely until they finally pack up and leave...

[harls]

Seadoo and Ski-doo are part of BRP (Bombardier Recreational Products) which broke away from the company in 2003 and is a separate bowl of fish altogether.

[Migs]

I loved this response by Harper in the House of Commons the other day in response to the Bloc Quebeciois whining...LOL.

"I can say with certainty that Quebec and other regions will get benefits. However, if the Bloc achieves its goal of separation, I can assure [Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe] that the benefits in Quebec will be nil," Mr. Harper said during Question Period.

[malek]

Unfortunately this doesn't seem likely until they finally pack up and leave...

please don't come here and tell us you love us, you broke our hearts the last time.:haha:

[graupner]

Unfortunately this doesn't seem likely until they finally pack up and leave...

What a free,stupid and purely racist comment. About 35% of quebecers are separatists, which means that about 65% are not and feel canadian (including myself). Now if you don't like Canada as it is, you're free to move away.
Always remember that Quebecers were called canadians way before any anglos were and we founded this country. So before asking us to leave, ask yourself who should leave in case you're not happy.

It would be like saying that because you're a redneck, everyone in Alberta is ( which is obviously not true) .

[Boris2k7]

First things first: you have to go to the natives, and I'm pretty sure they'll want to boot all of us out. ;)

[graupner]

First things first: you have to go to the natives, and I'm pretty sure they'll want to boot all of us out. ;)

Natives were never Canadians. They were Mohawks, Innus, and such.

Canada as a country and its inhabitants, canadians, were french before any anglos were. Probably someone who is such a proud canadian like ScottFromCalgary knows a lot about canadian history.
Montreal was the capital of Canada until the Canadian parlment in Montreal burnt down, and Quebec city is the oldest city in North America, founded over 400 years ago, while Montreal has been around for about 370 years.
Even today, the central politic activity in Canada is in Ottawa, which is about 2 hours from Montreal.

The roots of Canada are in Quebec, like it or not.
Calgary has been around for a mere 150 years maybe?

It's always easy to criticize from a place that has been around for a fairly short ammount of time. In 220 years, when (we can hope) oil will be disused, how things will turn out for Alberta??

Yes there's a bunch of noisemakers at Ottawa asking for separation, but there's a majority of quebec's population who is canadian before anything else.

[Boris2k7]

Yes, yes, yes... I was only kidding, okay? Just an example of taking precedence to the extreme. Really, who cares if you were here first? Does that make you more Canadian? Regardless of where the roots were, it looks like the tree sprouted legs and decided to take a walk over to Ontario... I would suggest that the "virgin land" which the natives lived on, is the soil in which the Canadian tree was planted. You could say that there are/were stewards of the land.

EDIT: And no, I don't give a shit how long you've been around. It is totally irrelevant. However, I am not agreeing with the heated responses from certain other members either, those about Quebec just outright leaving and whatnot. But using age and history as a basis for justifying political favouritism and industrial investments is quite pathetic.

Also, why bring up the oil? Are you just trying to get me irritated? Honestly, it is impossible to project that far into the future. I can only assume that Alberta will have changed quite a bit by then.

[malek]

Natives were never Canadians. They were Mohawks, Innus, and such.

Canada as a country and its inhabitants, canadians, were french before any anglos were. Probably someone who is such a proud canadian like ScottFromCalgary knows a lot about canadian history.
Montreal was the capital of Canada until the Canadian parlment in Montreal burnt down, and Quebec city is the oldest city in North America, founded over 400 years ago, while Montreal has been around for about 370 years.
Even today, the central politic activity in Canada is in Ottawa, which is about 2 hours from Montreal.

The roots of Canada are in Quebec, like it or not.
Calgary has been around for a mere 150 years maybe?

It's always easy to criticize from a place that has been around for a fairly short ammount of time. In 220 years, when (we can hope) oil will be disused, how things will turn out for Alberta??

Yes there's a bunch of noisemakers at Ottawa asking for separation, but there's a majority of quebec's population who is canadian before anything else.

graupner, why do you even mind arguing in these kind of threads???:tup:

[graupner]

graupner, why do you even mind arguing in these kind of threads???:tup:

ehehe I like to frustrate these albertans :)

[Migs]

graupner, why do you even mind arguing in these kind of threads???:tup:
I love how people school you in your arguments and you just come back with crap like this.:rolleyes:

[harls]

The internet makes everyone stupid.

[Greco Roman]

The internet makes everyone stupid.


I'll drink to that :cheers:

Come to think of it, I'll just drink anyways, lol.

[harls]

I am drinking. That's the only way I can read this thread.

[Bigtime]

C-17's are sweet, Canadian regional political talk is not.

Can't wait to see these bad boys flying around.

[ScottFromCalgary]

Kind of strange how this skyscraper forum always degenerates into mudslinging.

[harls]

^stick around.. you'll see this is the norm.

[Boris2k7]

Hey, at least we aren't SSC...

I agree with Bigtime, let's talk more about the planes themselves.

Here's a question: let's say that you are in charge of directing funds for the Canadian forces, and you are given the same amount of money and the same issues as today. What would you alternatively spend the money on, given that it is your obligation to do so? Planes? Tanks? Ships? Guns? Salaries? Training Facilities? Barracks/Housing?

Personally, aside from the heavy lifters, I would be investing in drones and other robotics technology. It's a growing part of warfare and Canada is good with high-tech stuff. Hell, you could take the developments in A.I., automated limbs, and other nifty stuff and then use them for civilian purposes afterwards. Oh, not to mention that using drones to scout out areas and carry out attacks could help to reduce the amount of coffins we see coming home during peacekeeping (peacemaking?) missions... (and this is not to discount the importance of the non-military involvement in peacekeeping)

[The Chemist]

Hey, at least we aren't SSC...

I agree with Bigtime, let's talk more about the planes themselves.

Here's a question: let's say that you are in charge of directing funds for the Canadian forces, and you are given the same amount of money and the same issues as today. What would you alternatively spend the money on, given that it is your obligation to do so? Planes? Tanks? Ships? Guns? Salaries? Training Facilities? Barracks/Housing?

Personally, aside from the heavy lifters, I would be investing in drones and other robotics technology. It's a growing part of warfare and Canada is good with high-tech stuff. Hell, you could take the developments in A.I., automated limbs, and other nifty stuff and then use them for civilian purposes afterwards. Oh, not to mention that using drones to scout out areas and carry out attacks could help to reduce the amount of coffins we see coming home during peacekeeping (peacemaking?) missions... (and this is not to discount the importance of the non-military involvement in peacekeeping)


My bro in the Forces tells me we already have UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) in use in Afghanistan.

As far as what the Forces needs, these C-17s are necessary. So are replacements for the C-130 Hercules currently in service that are over 40 years old. Replacements for the 4 Naval destroyers should also be a priority, as should the replacements for the 2 Protecteur-class supply ships. The Sea Kings replacement, the CH-148 Cyclone, will begin arriving next year. The Leopard tanks currently in service in Afghanistan will be at the end of their useful life by 2010, and will need replacement.

All in all, the Forces have been neglected for so long that there is a long list of things that they need to remain relevant in the 21st century.

[Boris2k7]

^ I know we've had the drones for a few years (didn't they break down at some point or something like that?) but I'm talking about taking some of the R&D into our own hands, build Canadian technology, and expand their uses in the field. If we could (almost) do it with the Arrow, we can certainly do it with automated weaponry and combat platforms... (forgive me my incoherent technobabble...)

[trueviking]

not one response to my tirade....damn....i'll have to try harder.

dont get me started on the marritimes....lazy bunch of fish smellin' pogey addicts.

[Policy Wonk]

Don't worry, you guys will have plenty to bitch about when "The New Canadian Government" subsudizes the hell out of a plan to restart Twin Otter manufacturing in Calgary and Vancouver.

[ScottFromCalgary]

Indeed...there's been enough said about bringing part of the National Portrait Gallery out west.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Don't worry, you guys will have plenty to bitch about when "The New Canadian Government" subsudizes the hell out of a plan to restart Twin Otter manufacturing in Calgary and Vancouver.

Actually there is a company in Sidney BC (on Vancouver Island) who have acquired the blueprints and license to build twin Otters. They will be the same airframe but with modern avionics and engines. As far as I know they have done this with minimum government help.

[VANRIDERFAN]

As for the purchase of the C17 and for all things to do with the Canadian military go to this site:

http://army.ca/

All you need to know on this and many other subjects.

[vid]

not one response to my tirade....damn....i'll have to try harder.

dont get me started on the marritimes....lazy bunch of fish smellin' pogey addicts.

But we loves our pogies!! :(

had perogies an muse mete fur super yum mit hafe mor tumarroe

[Wooster]

Calgary has been around for a mere 150 years maybe?


120 give or take! :D

So much entitlement in this thread.

Hey, when do we get our portrait gallery by the way!!! :poke: :speech:

[Lobstick]

Natives were never Canadians. They were Mohawks, Innus, and such.

Canada as a country and its inhabitants, canadians, were french before any anglos were.


Hi, as a decendent (1/4) of the First Nations, I would beg to differ. Please do not ever refer to us as "and such."

[vid]

You left out the Cree, Ojibwe, and Métis, and countless others.

Add in the Swedish, and that's a Métis with sixteen o's and an umlaut. :)

(It was a funny joke at work. :()

And surprisingly, most prefer the word Indians. You rarely hear Native or First Nations here outside of white people.

[Canadian Mind]

C-17's... it would have been better if we bought more or none. the optimum number would have been 8-12 (the air force originally wanted 16, and to just ditch the hercs). that way we could lease our services out to others aswell as more adequately cover ourselves. even with 4, rapid deployment to the north, or any troubled spot around the world, is pretty much impossible, would require to many trips.

my numbers for transport purchase would be:

8 C-17s
16 C-130Js
keep our 5 C-130H refueling craft
convert 2 or 3 more C-130Hs to refueling
sell off the other 13-14 C-130Hs for wither scrap or whole
More chinooks than what we are buying now.

While we are on the topic of air force, next gen fighter procurement.

Currently the media is spreading rumourous filth about JSF, and the "fact" that we will purchase 80 of them. Not the right aircraft for Canada. Firstly, it lacks the range at only 2300 kilometers. It also has only 1 engine, which means that a lost engine is a lost aircraft pretty much anywhere. It also lacks the speed. 1.8 max, but even then that is dangerous. until recently the recommended speed was 1.3, updated to mach 1.6 with some slight airframe modifications. It also lacks the weapons capacity. 4 missiles will do nil for us. thats back to 50's era payloads.

The principle argument for the aircraft is multi-role capability. This shouldn't be our highest priority, as i don't think we are planning in participating in any major ground wars.

the perfect aircraft for us would probrably be the F-22. top speed is listed as either 2.3 or 2.4, depending on where you go, but it can go for short sprints up to 2.6. It has a greater range, greater payload, 2 engines (a must). only problem is cost. In 10 years when it comes time to replace the F-18's, they will likely be much cheaper. Even if they aren't, Canada will be swimming in oil and recource riches by then.

I'm not advocating that we scrap multi-role. I think that we could afford a couple squadrons of F-22s, one at cold lake and one at the place in Quebec for our home defense, and then invest in 5 to 7 squadrons of JSF's for everything else, including home defense, but not the long range patrols.

By squadron i mean a standard 16 aircraft. so that would be about 32 F-22s plus an additional 8 for training and recoupment (aircraft get destroyed), and between 80 - 112 JSF's plus an additional 16-24 for training and recoupment. This we can afford. we can afford the two types because they use virtually the same parts, we get our home defense, aswell as something we can go and blow up stuff on the ground with.




Yes, I'm trying to get back on topic... one that i happen to enjoy talkign about.

[Policy Wonk]

Canada doesn't need the JSF of the F-22, Canada needs helicopter gunships.

[trueviking]

i think the c-17 are being purchased for political not military reasons...you either have to decide that this is a part of your military that you will invest in completely and buy a number that makes them useful, or you should find alternatives...like grouping with other small countries and buying them together....there is so little need for these planes and few countries our size have that capability.

didnt canada get on board with the jsf programme because they would be cheaper than the f-22? (30mil compared to 100mil)...i also though that there would be more opportunity for canadian participation in the development and future production that made it attractive.

wouldnt having two main line fighter create duplication in maintenance and servicing especially for such a small number of planes.

we should make our own planes....

[Policy Wonk]

I believe Canada got onboard with the JSF because at the time Canada still held options for the F-18 and McDonnell Douglas proposed that those F-18 options could become early delivery slots for the JSF. However McDonnell Douglas was eliminated from the running early in the program.

[Boris2k7]

we should make our own planes....

Agreed. The loss of the Arrow will always make me cry.

Something along the lines of the MQ-9 Reaper would do nicely for now though. It is a bigger, faster variant of the MQ-1 Predator (combat version of the RQ-1 Predator) and has been developed by General Atomics for the United States' Hunter-Killer program
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/7624/predatorb3ht3.jpg
^ An unnarmed MQ-9. Imagine that bad boy coming down out of nowhere and firing a missile at your ass.

Apparently the RQ-1 Predator has been extremely helpful in catching illegal immigrants coming into the U.S. from Mexico...

Attempts at building Mechs are also amusing to watch... such as M.P.S. I really hope that something comes from the effort.
http://www.mechaps.com/
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7161/mpsmkiuo5.jpg

[The Chemist]

i think the c-17 are being purchased for political not military reasons...you either have to decide that this is a part of your military that you will invest in completely and buy a number that makes them useful, or you should find alternatives...like grouping with other small countries and buying them together....there is so little need for these planes and few countries our size have that capability.


Gen. Hillier (the best CDS in a LONG time) is not a politician. He's a soldier - and a soldier's soldier, incredibly popular among the rank and file in the Canadian Forces. He is the man who said the Forces needed these planes, so don't claim that this was a political decision - it was a military decision, as it should be.

[niwell]

Canada with F-22s??? Talk about crazy expensive!

I agree that the JSF probably isn't the best bet, being single engine and all (I'm still suprised the USN agreed eventually). Realistically, I'd like to see the super hornet F-18 E/F as a replacement to our F-18As (which are finally being upgraged to C status). Also the Eurofighter (typhoon) or Rafale would be a pretty cool replacement.

[trueviking]

Gen. Hillier (the best CDS in a LONG time) is not a politician. He's a soldier - and a soldier's soldier, incredibly popular among the rank and file in the Canadian Forces. He is the man who said the Forces needed these planes, so don't claim that this was a political decision - it was a military decision, as it should be.

i am sure he did....why would he not want 3 billion dollars worth of hardware....i am sure he wants lots of other toys too...a general recommended that the armed forces needs more stuff?...imagine that.

....the decision to buy them was political....it looks good to the public because it can be sold as allowing the military to respond to tsunami's and earthquakes around the world...and it makes the americans happy....the reality is that what we got for our money wont do the job, and are inefficient costly to operate and overpriced to begin with.

the government touted the need for heavy transport by trying to make a big deal about the fact that we borrow planes from other countries when we need them....in reality this is common practice and more efficient for smaller countries.

this is what they should have done:

http://www.nato.int/issues/strategic-lift-air-sac/index.html

[Migs]

i think the c-17 are being purchased for political not military reasons...you either have to decide that this is a part of your military that you will invest in completely and buy a number that makes them useful, or you should find alternatives...like grouping with other small countries and buying them together....there is so little need for these planes and few countries our size have that capability.
Why always compare us to other countries and what they aren't doing? Why can't we lead the way? That is what the Aussie's and the Brits are doing which are both similar countries as Canada? The C-17 are a needed commodity and will be used to their fullest extent by our military......and if you don't believe me then feel free to read this thread.....

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,54089.0.html

[Migs]

If it was up to me, Canada would've purchased F-15E Strike Eagles to replace our CF-18's. From what I understand, South Korea just purchased a bunch of new ones so the assembly line at Boeing (I assume) is still building them as we speak.

[mr.x]

It took us 2 weeks to find planes to get our military to Asia after the tsunamis. Two weeks.

That's one good reason we're buying our planes. Canada has to start relying on itself, has to make its own decisions. What if a major earthquake hits Vancouver? The nearest armed forces we have is in Edmonton.



The plan to double+ military spending from $15 billion to $25-36.6 billion is something this country needs, though I would think by 2020 rather than 2025. We cannot keep on relying on the United States to protect us. And with global warming, with the increase in weather activity in Canada and around the world.....and with the arctic ice disappearing, we need a competent military force. Other countries WILL try to take over our sovereign arctic territory and we need some military presence to do that. Keeping territory is all about being able to control it.

[big W]

It took us 2 weeks to find planes to get our military to Asia after the tsunamis. Two weeks.

That's one good reason we're buying our planes. Canada has to start relying on itself, has to make its own decisions. What if a major earthquake hits Vancouver? The nearest armed forces we have is in Edmonton.



Yes in those situations we can have the military drive across from Edmonton to Vancouver and they will be there in a day.

While I am not a supporter of having a large military and using it as the US does theirs, I still think we need to have a decent sized military so that we can respond to disasters and once again be of help to the world in peacekeeping. We seem to have lost our capabilities to do those tasks. For that we need a larger better equiped military.

[trueviking]

It took us 2 weeks to find planes to get our military to Asia after the tsunamis. Two weeks.


aircraft availability had nothing to do with that....

The Tsunami struck Sri Lanka on December 26th 2004.
On December 30th 2005, a Dart recon group left for Sri Lanka on commercial aircraft.
On January 2nd, the Prime Minister announced the decision to deploy the DART to Sri Lanka.
On January 3rd 2005, the Minister of National Defence, Bill Graham announced the DART would be deployed.
On January 5, DART equipment was loaded on the first Antonov to leave for Sri Lanka. It took 5 Antonov flights to carry the 40 vehicles and 225 tons equipment to Sri Lanka.
Most of the DART personnel left Canada on January 6th on CC-150 Polaris aircraft and the rest on January 9th.
The DART arrived in Ampara on Jan 10, and become operational on Jan 11 2006.



i wont argue that having these 4 planes is better than not having them, but is it the best way to spend almost 4 billion dollars on our military?....wouldnt 15 new hercs do a much better job for a small military of our size for the same money?...we should be focusing on rapid deployment of small forces for peace keeping and human aid...these planes are for carrying tanks, not doctors.

these airplanes are for very sporadic use, are extremely expensive to fly and are really only there to transport heavy equipment to war zones....how often do we do that?...they are not the every day work horse that the hercs are....the c-17 has issues with dirt airstrips and is not as versatile as a c-130.

certainly if we were constantly deploying huge payloads across long distances, the c-17 is better than a herc...and the argument is often made that it can replace 3 hercs because of its size....the reality is though that herc sized payloads are the norm and having 4 massive planes 1/3 full carrying equipment around is not as good as the capability of 15 hercs.

a better solution would have been to buy 15 hercs with that money that could be stationed all across the country.....capable of performing 95% of the heavy lifting tasks that the day to day military requires and then rent planes for the other 5%.

these planes do not replace what hercs do....they replace what we used to rent every few years....and they dont even do that, with only 4 of them.

canada should be focusing on tactical aircraft that can move smaller payloads to small airsrips around the world and in our own country...the c-17 dont do that so we will still have a need for new hercs as these 4 monsters sit waiting for us to wage a ground war against another country so we can carry our tanks across the world....with our military, we should concentrate on peacekeeping, not ramping up for large scale deployment of heavy machinery....these planes were bought for afganistan not peace keeping roles.

anyways, we should have bought the antonovs....just because they are cooler...and cheaper.

[e909]

I don't think Canada can legally buy F-22s. I'm pretty sure the American government prevents the sale of stealth technology like that. For the same reason they don't sell F-117s, B-2 Bombers, etc to other countries.

[Calgarian]

I just started a new thread to discuss all things military.

[mr.x]

Yes in those situations we can have the military drive across from Edmonton to Vancouver and they will be there in a day.

While I am not a supporter of having a large military and using it as the US does theirs, I still think we need to have a decent sized military so that we can respond to disasters and once again be of help to the world in peacekeeping. We seem to have lost our capabilities to do those tasks. For that we need a larger better equiped military.

You couldn't even drive through BC in a day, nevermind in post-earthquake conditions.


I'm happy we got these planes.....it's done, get over it. But I do wonder how such a small plane, compared to commercial planes, would cost so much?


And I'm guessing Harper's plan to purchase unmanned aircraft will be used for Afghanistan and primarily for arctic defence.....makes a lot of sense imo.

[Migs]

I don't think Canada can legally buy F-22s. I'm pretty sure the American government prevents the sale of stealth technology like that. For the same reason they don't sell F-117s, B-2 Bombers, etc to other countries.
F-35 has stealth technology.

[mr.x]

F-35 has stealth technology.

yep, and Canada is part of the international F-35 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Lightning II project. Our government has already spent US$440 million to help develop the aircraft. The Americans have plans to buy/build 2,400 of these jets for US$200 billion. We have plans of our own to buy about 120 F-35's at a cost of $10 billion to replace our CF-18's.

She's a beauty.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2003/0403F35_3.jpg
http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit1/F-35%20JSF.jpg
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-35A_JSF_Top_lg.jpg


These planes are quite deadly. Apparently, they can fire electromagnetic pulses to the ground and it'll fry up all electronic hardware.

[boden]

I think it is a good thing as we will be able to carry more snowballs in times of crisis.

[e909]

F-35 has stealth technology.

I realize that, but it's a watered down version for a reason.

[Migs]

I realize that, but it's a watered down version for a reason.
Actually no, both airframes use the same stealth technology. Its said that if anything, the F-35 will be tougher to detect on radar because its much smaller than the F-22.

[Canadian Mind]

Actually no, both airframes use the same stealth technology. Its said that if anything, the F-35 will be tougher to detect on radar because its much smaller than the F-22.

not true unfortunately. When viewed by a Mig-29's radar systems, an F-22 will be detectred at 7 miles, the JSF at either 12 or 15, depending on your source.

As far as the herc loads go, they would be far bigger if we had bigger aircraft. It would mean less re-supply flights to alert, Afghanistan, etc. plus, we will be getting these within a year, we wont have our replacement hers for atleast 2-3, if not more. our current fleet is falling apart, this could be our saving grace.