Jump to content

      













Photo

Canadian Military and Defence


  • Please log in to reply
215 replies to this topic

#21 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 28 November 2016 - 12:07 PM

http://news.national...e-missing-pilot

 

CF-18 fighter jet crashes near Cold Lake

 

 


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#22 57WestHills

57WestHills
  • Member
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 28 November 2016 - 03:32 PM

And the member from the RCAF Squadron in North Saanich died as a result of accident injuries from last week.

And sexual misconduct results were published which weren't pretty.

A bad day for the CAF.

#23 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,316 posts

Posted 28 November 2016 - 04:09 PM

And the member from the RCAF Squadron in North Saanich died as a result of accident injuries from last week.

And sexual misconduct results were published which weren't pretty.

A bad day for the CAF.

 

Statistics Canada defines sexual assault as unwanted sexual touching, sexual attacks and sexual activity to which the victim is unable to consent. Unwanted touching was, by far, the most common complaint of the respondents.

 

This is the problem when relying on the surveys. Sexual assault covers everything from rape to someone touching your shoulder without permission.



#24 57WestHills

57WestHills
  • Member
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 28 November 2016 - 04:20 PM

Misconduct. Not assault.

I took the survey. It was pretty clear, obviously not perfect but didn't leave a lot open for confusion.

#25 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,316 posts

Posted 28 November 2016 - 04:23 PM

Misconduct. Not assault.

I took the survey. It was pretty clear, obviously not perfect but didn't leave a lot open for confusion.

 

88.2% of respondents who said that they were sexually assaulted identified the type of assault as unwanted touching.

 

http://www.statcan.g...161128a-eng.htm



#26 57WestHills

57WestHills
  • Member
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 28 November 2016 - 04:24 PM

I'm confused what you're getting at then?

#27 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 28 November 2016 - 04:29 PM

This is the problem when relying on the surveys. Sexual assault covers everything from rape to someone touching your shoulder without permission.

 

Yes, it's difficult to define what a sexual touch is.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#28 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,316 posts

Posted 28 November 2016 - 05:05 PM

I'm confused what you're getting at then?

 

I am saying that without knowing context and definitions then I can't see how the media can draw comparisons between the military and civilian surveys.


  • 57WestHills likes this

#29 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 28 November 2016 - 10:58 PM

Yes, it's difficult to define what a sexual touch is.

 

Like the guy in the car commercial that still has trouble with hugs.



#30 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,175 posts

Posted 06 December 2016 - 09:44 AM

I'm surprised nobody is talking about Canada's massive purchase of 18 (eighteen) Super Hornets. Not 180. 18! That means we'll have like three operational Super Hornets at any given time. Way to go Federal Government!



#31 Wayne

Wayne
  • Member
  • 567 posts

Posted 06 December 2016 - 10:05 AM

I'm surprised nobody is talking about Canada's massive purchase of 18 (eighteen) Super Hornets. Not 180. 18! That means we'll have like three operational Super Hornets at any given time. Way to go Federal Government!


Yeah,, not sure why the Feds are pursuing this. Seems to be a knee jerk decision.

#32 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,175 posts

Posted 06 December 2016 - 12:16 PM

Yeah,, not sure why the Feds are pursuing this. Seems to be a knee jerk decision.

 

A political solution to a political problem, as usual, I assume.

 

The status or airworthiness of our CF-18s is apparently in such dire straits that we need to purchase new aircraft as quickly as possible, so we go ahead and purchase 18? That seems like a very small and arbitrary number.  How do you get any sort of economies of scale with a fleet that size? Is that just for one or two bases? Must be.


  • 57WestHills likes this

#33 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,797 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 06 December 2016 - 01:20 PM

A political solution to a political problem, as usual, I assume.

 

The status or airworthiness of our CF-18s is apparently in such dire straits that we need to purchase new aircraft as quickly as possible, so we go ahead and purchase 18? That seems like a very small and arbitrary number.  How do you get any sort of economies of scale with a fleet that size? Is that just for one or two bases? Must be.

Remember technically we only have two actual combat "fighter" bases (@ Cold Lake AB and Bagotville QC - I exclude Moose Jaw because its essentially a NATO training base), so sadly 18 aircraft pretty much covers it.

 

Beyond that the RCAF is, well, small; I think after crashes over the years are taken into account and planes held over purely for spare parts are also taken into consideration (meaning they don't actually fly, we purchase then hold them in reserve and cannibalize them for parts as needed), we only have something like 50-60 aging F-18 front line fighter-interceptors in the entire inventory. 

 

Have to remember we're cheap when it comes to spending $ on the CAF in general, and where aircraft specifically are concerned its not just the purchase price per plane but the cost of

 

1) ongoing support and routine maintenance,

2) fuel,

3) weapons, and above all...

4) aircrew (both pilots and ground support) - *Remember too there have been countless stories in recent years of RCN naval units laid up here especially as well as Halifax due to lack of both trained crew and fuel, i.e. the feds didn't fund them adequately so they sat dockside. Same story with the RCAF....

 

So yes "18" is likely all we have budget for. A retired RCAF F-18 pilot was interviewed last week after this story broke and was adamant that the only planes we should be looking at are the F-22 or F-35. But really why would the Canadian government be interested in the opinion of a combat pilot who - you know - actually flew for a living?


  • Bingo likes this

#34 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,882 posts

Posted 06 December 2016 - 08:12 PM

We presently have 72 serviceable but aging F18's. At any given time 30% are not combat ready due to mechanical servicing, updating etc. The 18 F18's will allow us to meet our NATO commitments and our sovereign protection commitments over the short term while still needing a front line aircraft to replace our old F18's in the near future. Basically they are just typical politicians kicking the can down the road and hope someone else gets stuck with making an expensive purchase. Ostensibly they are saying they are opening the competition to other builders but they just want to put off making a decision.


  • jonny likes this
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#35 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 7,089 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 07 December 2016 - 08:50 AM

We presently have 72 serviceable but aging F18's. At any given time 30% are not combat ready due to mechanical servicing, updating etc. The 18 F18's will allow us to meet our NATO commitments and our sovereign protection commitments over the short term while still needing a front line aircraft to replace our old F18's in the near future. Basically they are just typical politicians kicking the can down the road and hope someone else gets stuck with making an expensive purchase. Ostensibly they are saying they are opening the competition to other builders but they just want to put off making a decision.

 

Isn't the obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defense? Canada is under 1%, I think. 18 fighter jets isn't going to bring that up to 2% for even one year.



#36 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,797 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 07 December 2016 - 09:06 AM

Isn't the obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defense? Canada is under 1%, I think. 18 fighter jets isn't going to bring that up to 2% for even one year.

It is; in fact - amazingly and I had to look this up twice to be certain - the last time we met that 2% obligation? Why no less than under the administration of that well-known military-lover Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

 

Which goes to show that chronic under-funding of the CAF isn't a 'party' thing: the Tories are just as guilty if not more so than the Libs in regards. We didn't hit the 2% mark under any of the Clark-Campbell-Mulroney-Harper administrations. Which as I've pointed out before points directly to a systemic issue with the military procurement process in this country which is indisputably broken. Until its fixed - if it ever is - I suspect nothing will change.



#37 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 06:02 AM

 

More than a dozen years after they were first ordered, the program to buy new military, fixed-wing, search-and-rescue planes has cleared its last hurdle,

with European defence giant Airbus expected to come out the winner.

 

fixed-wing-search-plane-c-295.jpg

 

The Airbus C-295 transport plane has been chosen to replace the RCAF's nearly 50-year-old C-115 Buffalo fixed-wing search-and-rescue plane. (CBC News/Airbus website)

According to the federal government's defence acquisition guide, the new planes are not expected to be fully operational until 2023 — 19 years after they were originally ordered,

although the first aircraft delivery could come by the fall of next year.

The hybrid procurement was intended to deliver not only aircraft, but recommendations on how many planes are needed and where to station them.

The companies were asked to submit prices and aircraft numbers for a fleet that would operate out of at least four main bases across the country

— Greenwood, N.S., Trenton, Winnipeg and Comox, B.C. — and a separate proposal using only three airfields.

 

 


#38 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,882 posts

Posted 09 December 2016 - 07:57 PM

Isn't the obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defense? Canada is under 1%, I think. 18 fighter jets isn't going to bring that up to 2% for even one year.

This purchase had nothing to do with the the 2% we were supposed to be spending.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#39 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 16 January 2017 - 02:25 PM

http://www.timescolo...-duty-1.7530917

 

Vice chief of defence staff Mark Norman temporarily relieved of duty

 

 

Canadians deserve to know more about why vice chief of defence staff Mark Norman has been abruptly relieved of his duties, the opposition Conservatives said Monday as questions swirled around the fate of one of the military's highest ranking officers.

 

 

Citing an anonymous source, the Globe and Mail reported Monday that the decision followed an investigation into the alleged leak of "high-level secret documents."

 

Norman, who has been in the military for over 30 years, could not be reached for comment.

 

 

 

Odd.  I get it would be worse if it read "Norman, who has been in the military for over 30 years, would not comment when reached at his expansive Sochi, Russia vacation home."


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#40 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,316 posts

Posted 16 January 2017 - 05:09 PM

I have made the point before that the Military brass hold the public in contempt. They feel that we have no right to meddle in their affairs and that they can look after themselves. 

 

I would expect that the only way we will get further information is if the Government forces them to.

 

Seeing this comment in the TC article I wouldn't at all be surprised that Norman completed his report, It was damning and the CDS wanted to bury it, so Norman started to leak details to the media.

 

Among Norman's recent public tasks was overseeing an investigation into the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., after a number of suspected suicides and allegations of sexual misconduct. Norman was to have reported back on his findings from that investigation in December. - See more at: http://www.timescolo...h.UurdIu9P.dpuf



You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users