Canada readies fighter jets

[CHIMO]

OTTAWA—While publicly touting redevelopment efforts in Afghanistan, the federal government has quietly laid the groundwork to deploy CF-18s, its front-line fighter jet, to support Canadian troops battling insurgents, documents show.

Ottawa has awarded the U.S. government a $1.9 million contract for "deployment support" for the CF-18s, according to a list of contracts from Public Works and Government Services.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1158875420005&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

What the heck. NORAD doesn't work anyway. Santa has Rudolph.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. The War Against Terror is going swimmingly

nothing to see here, move along. :sarcasm:

[Redstone]

2. F-18s are worthless for ground support anyway. They fly WAY too

fast, and have short legs (limited fuel capacity).

A true waste of money, this is.

Redstone

[saigon68]

4. Not to mention the number of maintenance hours per flying hour

and the associated cost of spare parts etc.

[Redstone]

5. Not to mention that at all. They'd have been better off buying F-5Es.

Still short legs, but much less expensive in the long run.

Redstone

[Cobalt-60]

7. This is a job for a Warthog

It dates from the seventies, but there is no substitute for the A-10.
They need to produce some of their own.

[acmejack]

11. The perfect ground support aircraft. Too cheap.

Couldn't have that, unsexy, must have f-16s at least in the case of USAF. That was what our local Guard unit replaced them with. I remember the consternation when they discovered how much louder 5 dB actually was!

[DemoTex]

19. Agreed. A-10 for close air support (CAS).

CAS subsumes troops or tanks on the ground (or downed aviators behind enemy lines or in otherwise close proximity to the bad guys). The best CAS aircraft I have ever witnessed were the A-1H Skyraiders (aka "Spads"), call-sign "Sandy." Those guys had a long loiter time (plenty of fuel), lots of ordnance, and an unbelievable tolerance for battle damage. The A-1s were able to work low enough and slow enough to be very effective in the extremely hostile terrain of Laos and the southwestern border regions of North Vietnam (the Fish's Mouth, the Ban Kari and Mi Gia Pass areas) that were their principal A/O (areas of operation).

For an airman shot down on the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos, there was no more beautiful sight than a flight of four "Sandys" leading the way for a Jolly Green Giant helicopter.

For CAS, the fast-movers were basically useless. I'm afraid the F-16 falls in that class. Thirsty all the time, and Winchester way too early. Their motto: One pass; haul ass.*

*Not meant to denigrate the service or bravery of the pilots of the fast-movers. Their presence saved many downed pilots by keeping the enemy at bay until the Sandys and Jolly Greens arrived. Unfortunately, the fast-movers' high vulnerability to battle damage often resulted in a multiple extraction problem for the slow-movers.



"Sandy" A/O; DemoTex A/O


USAF Douglas A-1H Skyraider (Sandy)
NKP-AFB Thailand

[farmbo]

20. Right...but the CF-18 would be a perfect strike aircraft against IRAN

Think about it: 1) Canada is being run by Bush-loving Righties now; 2) Rove has promised an October surprise, generally hinted to involve military action against Iran; 3) Condi is shacking up with the Canadian foreign minister these days.

There are just too many coincidences in this story to be taken at face value.

:shrug:

[JohnyCanuck]

23. Yup those depleted uranium rounds fired by the warthogs

sure do a number on the terrorists, and of course you have the added benefit that the depleted uranium dust left over after NATO has called it a day, packed its bags and gone home will continue killing off the inhabitants well into the future. Double the bang for the buck!

Attack a village with an A-10 Warthog and leave a trench. Attack a village with an A-10 Warthog firing depleted uranium and leave a poisoned graveyard -- the people dead, plants dying or sterile, the earth eternally toxic. The A-10 is an aircraft built around a gun -- a 30 mm 7 barrel Gatling that can spew 3.900 rounds per minute. This criminal plane fired 95% of the depleted uranium deployed by the U. S. during the Gulf War, leaving behind 300-800 tons (Dutch Laka Foundation) poisoning humans and the elements in Kuwait and Iraq. Sanctions (a crime against humanity) and depleted uranium (a war crime) have killed 2 million Iraqis since the war,s end. Said Dr. Jannan Ghalib while showing Olivia Ward of the Toronto Star a photograph album of malformed babies: "This one, no head. This one, legs fused together. Another, no limbs and tiny buds on the misshapen chest. Then a face with no eyes, just flaps of skin over the empty sockets. Another with a huge water swollen head with no brain. (Atomic Veteran,s Radiation News, Vol. 3, No. 6) Depleted uranium is a delayed response weapon which burns its way through tank armor and oxidizes, throwing radioactive particles as far away as 25 miles. When ingested, these particles cause chemical and radioactive damage to the bronchial tree, to kidneys, liver and bones, causing somatic and genetic trauma. Cancer often results. Iraq and Yugoslavia are template wars, blueprints for future imperial wars -- targeting the total of a society -- military, civilians, the unborn, the infrastructure, the ecology, the health and spirit of a people. These wars even overflow against the troops that fight them. 90,000 American Gulf War veterans are now chronically ill. A U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs study of 251 veteran,s families in Mississippi shows that 67% had children with severe illnesses or birth defects. The U. S. has made another fatal mistake with depleted uranium -- it has given it away to a score of other countries, openly inviting them to make their own weapons, fight their own nuclear wars and infest the planet with more radiation.

December 19th ends Advent - a time of reparation and conversion. We mark this day by mourning the civilians killed in America's wars - nine civilians to every soldier, and by converting one hellish instrument of their death. They die forgotten and alone - no grateful nation to sorrow their passing - no flags nor official ritual. They are expendable; they are the true cannon fodder. We come to the Maryland Warfield Air National Guard Base to convert the A-10, as Roman Catholic Christians, in obedience to God,s prohibition against killing. Also, to embody Isaiah,s vision of a disarmed world where hearts are converted to compassion and justice and the weapons are converted to the tools of peace. Finally, to atone for another nuclear war in Iraq, and a third in Yugoslavia. So help us God.

http://www.greenmac.com/Susan/SC_13DU1219.html

[Lisa]

21. I think most of our air force is from the Cold War era, anyway

Basically, long-distance fighter-interceptors to patrol the borders. Canada didn't really intend to be fighting this kind of war, needing something to support the ground forces. So there hasn't been any discussion in Parliament about buying something like the Warthog. (Maybe we could get some leftover Beavers and Otters and mount guns on those -- they're pretty reliable under primitive conditions!)

We did buy some new helicopters for the Coast Guard (and to support our navy ships). And there's been some lobbying to get some long-distance heavy-lift aircraft, to replace our aging Hercules craft. This has come up a couple of times, in regards to getting stuff to our overseas peacekeeping missions -- and most recently, emergency relief efforts like after the tsunami (when one of our planes had to turn back twice, due to mechanical problems, delaying the supplies). That was pretty embarrassing, and having to beg/rent rides from the Russians and US was reported widely in the media.

[Lisa]

25. and actually, I wish someone would raise this in the House

The Canadian public has traditionally been reluctant to okay large military expenditures. Pay for the troops -- for sure. Arctic training and sovereignty patrols -- fine. Expensive vehicles -- ummmm....

Mulroney's government got slammed for ordering helicopters (which also had a search/rescue function), one of admittedly many reasons why Chretien's Liberals beat them. As I recall, the Liberals cancelled the helicopter contract and the government had to cough up some penalty cash as a result. Then a few years later, they bought some different helicopters anyway, because the aging Sea Kings (older than the parents of some of the personnel) were having too many accidents. Several months into the Afghanistan mission, some of our people were killed when their Iltis vehicle drove over a land mine, and the government approved purchase of the more-heavily-armoured "G-wagon". (Our soldiers are still dying, though. I know that the idealistic vison of our guys going about in open-topped jeeps wearing only blue berets on their heads was doomed to meet the hard reality of Afghanistan, but part of me really wanted to believe in a form of security that's more resilient than bullets and armour plating.)

After the tsunami, it became evident that our existing cargo planes are too old and too small to get our much-vaunted DART emergency team halfway around the world in a 24-to-48-hour timespan. There was a public outcry and people began to demand why, if we are supposed to be peacekeepers and rescue specialists, we need to rent Russian planes or hitch a ride with the Americans.

So -- it would be much easier to get Canadians to approve the purchase of things which can be used for situations other than direct combat (like the cargo aircraft and the rescue choppers). Even the G-wagons can be described as transportation in hazardous conditions, not necessarily during a battlefield situation. I work for the NDP (which generally is not in favour of military expenditures), and there are quite a number of NDPers (and Liberals too) who do not want our troops to die in air crashes and other mishaps which could be avoided with better equipment.

A plane like the Warthog, though, is another matter entirely. I don't think Parliament would approve the purchase. And if it were proposed, it would certainly bring home the fact that what we've been asked to do in Afghanistan is quite different from our post-Pearson view of our military. Even some of the people who voted for Harper would cringe at the thought of Canadian aircraft strafing and destroying things on the ground, possibly hitting civilians or even our own troops -- we aren't so naive or anti-American to belive that such situations can solely be blamed on Bush.

[CC]

3. Didn't we shut down NORAD

not too long ago? Maybe I am remembering wrong.

[Kagemusha]

6. More like switched offices

NORAD itself certainly still exists.

It's not like we know much anyway, besides that they dropped the ball hard on 9/11.

[rodeodance]

13. oh NO> who will track Santa?

[razors edge]

8. 1.9 million?

that wont change the tires and refuel two squadrons for a week. let alone arm, control, repair, etc. Does canada have mechanics and a supply network of their own in Kandahar?

Besides, helicopters in mountainous terrain supply the best air cover. Even an A-10 can't linger to compress sustained fire. F-18 are sold as ground support because the USMC won't carrier with a subsonic and the Navy won't buy a single engine, Hell put the F-4s back in service. More maintenance than the F-18 (I know from experience) but fully capable and a heavy lifter with proven results.

[independentpiney]

12. Even choppers won't work that well in Afghanistan

I'm reading 'The Soviet-Afghan War-how a superpower fought and lost' by the Russian general staff. The mujahidin figured out tactics to counter air superiority back then, they'll do the same now.

[razors edge]

15. I understand that,

we left alot of stingers somewhere over there for one, and the Chinese have been making replacement battery packs for them for years, but if I wanted close air support in a fight to the death for my marines, I would sacrifice helo pilots and gunships at a better return on investment, than steak by at 300 MPH dropping 20 MM and hoping for something to die except from friendly fire.

[independentpiney]

18. Agreed n/t

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. The 1.9M is just for "deployment support" - fuel and "parking" space . .

.
.
.

with the good old WarLords of the Universe, the US of A

From the posted article:

"the $1.9 million contract with the United States could be for fuel and space to house aircraft."

/snip/

Canada has so far spent $2.3 billion in Afghanistan since 2001, with the bulk of the money — $1.8 billion — going to military operations. The extension of the mission through to 2009 is expected to boost the bill by $1.25 billion, according to figures provided to Black's office by the government.

/snip/

the bulk of the money — $1.8 billion — going to military operations
_______________________________________________

Guess Canada is getting out of the peacekeeping business

And joining the US in making WAR its priority.

Shame on us

more:

The CF-18 contract was one of 20 contracts for the Afghan mission revealed in documents that were tabled this week. They include:

#
$30 million for an "acoustic weapon locator system" to pinpoint enemy weapons, such as rockets and mortars.

#
$34.1 million in two separate contracts for aerial drones to act as soldiers' "eyes-in-the-sky."

#
$13 million for additional armour for vehicles.

#
$31 million for a system to defend against roadside bombs, plus another $2.3 million contract for a "personal landmine protection system."
___________________________________________

????

Where's the millions for food, humanitarian aid, schools, hospitals, and all that other "silly" stuff . .

I fear we have fallen into the warmongers trap

And I don't know why . . . .

(sigh)

[Stella_Artois]

10. Meanwhile

Military careers are on the up and up. Nothing better on a warmonger officers CV than a nice little war.

Lots of Colonels and Majors thinking of future stars.

[sueragingroz]

14. Don't worry

Harper won't survive the next election...

Prime Minister Rae... Prime Minister Dion?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1158833712002&call_pageid=970599119419

[ConcernedCanuk]

22. I do SOOOO hope you are right about Harper, but I still have concerns

.
.
.

It was Martin, a Liberal who initiated our "combat" role - Harper extended it -

I would be happy to see our NDP have a crack at running the country -

But they've never come close to having a majority that I can remember, but they HAVE had a restricting influence on the Libs and Conservatives - of course the Bloc Quebeqois has it's own mind too,

We are very fortunate not to have just a two-party system like the US - where y'all just have the choice of the lesser evil . . .

Only lately, between the voters and them "machines"

Y'all been (s)electing the WORSE of the two evils . . .

Good Luck down there . . .

OH!

(oops) Bermuda ain't in the USA - or occupied(yet)

Lucky You!

[daleo]

24. "WarLords of the Universe"

That's pretty good.

[ConcernedCanuk]

26. "WarLords of the Universe" - heck , I furgot I even posted that

.
.
.

I hadda go back and see where I typed it in -

But like they say

If the Foo Shits . . .

[Joanne98]

16. Martin is Bushco!

[sueragingroz]

17. Which is why he is gone

The ONLY reason why Harper even got a minority is because Canadians figured out what Paul Martin was all about.

Now he's gone.

And it's time for new Liberal Party Leadership.

I didn't get a chance to vote in the last election because I was in the midst of establishing my residence in Bermuda... but you can be darned sure that I'm gonna be participating in the next one!