CKA Forums :: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba

Pucara? Very interesting.

Like it or not, we are inseperable from the US forces. Aside from our partnership with the defence of the airspace, Alaska does a better job of defending the north than we can afford. I think we play a fools game when we try to match or play their game with air superiority.

I think a crap load of locally made, long range aircraft would go a long way to protecting our airpace better than a dozen fighters that rairly fly... and it would get a lot more Canadian aviators a lot more air time.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

On the anger thing. Wrong sentiment, it's more a sense of dissapointment at how Canada's air power has degraded.

Our Air Power is comparable to countries like Belgium, and the Netherlands.

Looking at these countries on a map compared to Canada really shows you that there is something deeply wrong with that situation...

Don't even get me started on our lack of AWACS. Most serious Air Forces have them.

Of course we don't. Go figure.

They were just an example of what I was talking about. I like them a little better because they have 2 engines but then I'd rather see us remake something like a Bronco anyways.

The main ppint is that it's better to have something we can fly all the time than something that we never use.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

On the anger thing. Wrong sentiment, it's more a sense of dissapointment at how Canada's air power has degraded.

wrong. we absolutely have AWAC. i don't know where you got that from. i've been on them, worked on them.

Canada should be deciding on the next gen fighter and preparing to buy it in sufficient numbers.

You sure are being argumentative. Are you warming up for another banning or what? I have no time for you're sillyness.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Pucara? Very interesting.

They worked well for the Argies didn't they? They accounted for almost all their fighter losses while the better aircraft like the super Etendards and Mirages accounted for almost all their kills. Granted the Pucaras didn't carry the exocets but still. They were no match for Harriers.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

On the anger thing. Wrong sentiment, it's more a sense of dissapointment at how Canada's air power has degraded.

wrong. we absolutely have AWAC. i don't know where you got that from. i've been on them, worked on them.

We can't be too hard on the Liberals. I think Mulroney got rid of our chinooks the first time.

You don't have an airforce. You have Air Command which has no ability to project force past Newfoundland.

If we pay big bucks for having 80 Hornets that can't even give air cover to our troops, are we putting cash into the wrong things?
I think so.

That cash keeping the CF18s defending the St Lawrence seaway could be better spent having a Canadian Army Air Corps regiment of AH-64's.

Poo on the Griffons, get the real thing.

Canada should be deciding on the next gen fighter and preparing to buy it in sufficient numbers.

Author:	DerbyX [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
EyeBrock EyeBrock: Pucara? Very interesting. They worked well for the Argies didn't they? They accounted for almost all their fighter losses while the better aircraft like the super Etendards and Mirages accounted for almost all their kills. Granted the Pucaras didn't carry the exocets but still. They were no match for Harriers.

Author:	ridenrain [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
Like it or not, we are inseperable from the US forces. Aside from our partnership with the defence of the airspace, Alaska does a better job of defending the north than we can afford. I think we play a fools game when we try to match or play their game with air superiority. I think a crap load of locally made, long range aircraft would go a long way to protecting our airpace better than a dozen fighters that rairly fly... and it would get a lot more Canadian aviators a lot more air time.

Author:	DerbyX [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
ridenrain ridenrain: Like it or not, we are inseperable from the US forces. Aside from our partnership with the defence of the airspace, Alaska does a better job of defending the north than we can afford. I think we play a fools game when we try to match or play their game with air superiority. I think a crap load of locally made, long range aircraft would go a long way to protecting our airpace better than a dozen fighters that rairly fly... and it would get a lot more Canadian aviators a lot more air time. Really? Up until your post Canada has had a well trained but less numerous force. If you think the Pucaras are a good bet then read up. Their less then capable aircraft were defeated wholesale by the Brits and provided little more then targets. Canada is better suited to employing fewer numbers of more capable equipment. Under your theory we should just employ a few thousand spitfires.

Author:	ridenrain [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
They were just an example of what I was talking about. I like them a little better because they have 2 engines but then I'd rather see us remake something like a Bronco anyways. The main ppint is that it's better to have something we can fly all the time than something that we never use.

Author:	Canadian_Mind [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
How about the money to use what we already got? Say an extra 5 or 10 billion per year.

CKA Forums http://www.canadaka.net/forums/

Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba http://www.canadaka.net/forums/current-events-f59/canadian-chinook-turns-the-tables-carries-u-s-troops-to-ba-t72660-45.html	Page 4 of 6

Author:	cyprien [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
saturn_656 saturn_656: EyeBrock EyeBrock: On the anger thing. Wrong sentiment, it's more a sense of dissapointment at how Canada's air power has degraded. Our Air Power is comparable to countries like Belgium, and the Netherlands. Looking at these countries on a map compared to Canada really shows you that there is something deeply wrong with that situation... Don't even get me started on our lack of AWACS. Most serious Air Forces have them. Of course we don't. Go figure. wrong. we absolutely have AWAC. i don't know where you got that from. i've been on them, worked on them.

Author:	DerbyX [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
ridenrain ridenrain: They were just an example of what I was talking about. I like them a little better because they have 2 engines but then I'd rather see us remake something like a Bronco anyways. The main ppint is that it's better to have something we can fly all the time than something that we never use. You like what better? Pucaras? The CF-18s fly all the time also. They just aren't deployed to Afghanistan. For the air supported needed their we might as well be deploying WW2 era aircraft as all we need is constant air support cover. Have you given a thought to the future or are you just looking to bitch? Canada should be deciding on the next gen fighter and preparing to buy it in sufficient numbers.

Author:	ridenrain [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
You sure are being argumentative. Are you warming up for another banning or what? I have no time for you're sillyness.

Author:	saturn_656 [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
cyprien cyprien: saturn_656 saturn_656: EyeBrock EyeBrock: On the anger thing. Wrong sentiment, it's more a sense of dissapointment at how Canada's air power has degraded. Our Air Power is comparable to countries like Belgium, and the Netherlands. Looking at these countries on a map compared to Canada really shows you that there is something deeply wrong with that situation... Don't even get me started on our lack of AWACS. Most serious Air Forces have them. Of course we don't. Go figure. wrong. we absolutely have AWAC. i don't know where you got that from. i've been on them, worked on them. Oh I wasn't aware we had bought any AWACS... What AWACS aircraft do we have? E-2? E-3? E-767?

Author:	saturn_656 [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
DerbyX DerbyX: Canada should be deciding on the next gen fighter and preparing to buy it in sufficient numbers. And I'm going to win the 6-49...

Author:	DerbyX [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
ridenrain ridenrain: You sure are being argumentative. Are you warming up for another banning or what? I have no time for you're sillyness. You are the person claiming Canada should employ larger numbers of less capable aircraft. As for my banning, I never got to thank you for your disgusting comments accusing me of being a person who resorted to a multiple account. That poor person had his thread destroyed by your assholishness. I should thank you though. As a result of that thread another person got banned for a week who richly deserved it.

Author:	EyeBrock [ Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
DerbyX DerbyX: EyeBrock EyeBrock: Pucara? Very interesting. They worked well for the Argies didn't they? They accounted for almost all their fighter losses while the better aircraft like the super Etendards and Mirages accounted for almost all their kills. Granted the Pucaras didn't carry the exocets but still. They were no match for Harriers. No but in a ground support role Pucaras or something of their ilk, could provide effective cover. A Pucara isn't a 'fighter' it's a COIN aircraft. Most destroyed by the Brits were taken out by the SAS, not Harriers. As far as I know, the Taleban don't have air superiority so a COIN aircraft doesn't need to go toe-to-toe with Terry in a dog fight. Lets face it, the CF18's are not providing anything at the moment.

Author:	EyeBrock [ Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
cyprien cyprien: saturn_656 saturn_656: EyeBrock EyeBrock: On the anger thing. Wrong sentiment, it's more a sense of dissapointment at how Canada's air power has degraded. Our Air Power is comparable to countries like Belgium, and the Netherlands. Looking at these countries on a map compared to Canada really shows you that there is something deeply wrong with that situation... Don't even get me started on our lack of AWACS. Most serious Air Forces have them. Of course we don't. Go figure. wrong. we absolutely have AWAC. i don't know where you got that from. i've been on them, worked on them. NATO has AWACS. We as a country do not. Didn't you notice that where the grey maple leaf should have been was a rather large "NATO", as you climbed up the aircraft steps? Or maybe the fact that the crews are multinational didn't register with you? Come on. You maybe need to read up on the Command you are in before you post further.

Author:	bootlegga [ Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:05 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
RUEZ RUEZ: We can't be too hard on the Liberals. I think Mulroney got rid of our chinooks the first time. You're right about that.

Page 4 of 6	All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB ©

Author:	bootlegga [ Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
EyeBrock EyeBrock: You don't have an airforce. You have Air Command which has no ability to project force past Newfoundland. Not quite true, because with our air-to-air refueling planes, we could project force well out into any of the three oceans off our coasts. EyeBrock EyeBrock: If we pay big bucks for having 80 Hornets that can't even give air cover to our troops, are we putting cash into the wrong things? I think so. That cash keeping the CF18s defending the St Lawrence seaway could be better spent having a Canadian Army Air Corps regiment of AH-64's. Poo on the Griffons, get the real thing. I agree that we should have CF-18s in the Stan, but it was O'Connor himself who said there was no need for them, which we both agreed was bollocks. And we should have at least two regiments of Apaches or Tigers in service. Gunships are fast and provide a lot of punch. DerbyX DerbyX: Canada should be deciding on the next gen fighter and preparing to buy it in sufficient numbers. We are, that's why we've contributed a couple hundred million to developing the JSF. I don't know if that is the right plane for us, but some in the CF think so.