Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs'
- Thread starter Mogz
- Start date
RE: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs
I myself, and take it for what it's worth, don't think that a Nation as wealthy as Canada should be forced (by our own Government) to drive hundreds of kilometers to resupply forward units, in essence, gambling with the lives of our Supply Techs, MSE Ops, and their escorts.
We have one of the most well equiped militaries in the World, yet at the same time, one of the most ill-equiped....if you can fathom how that works. Our ground troops employ some amazing equipment; LAV-IIIs, Coyotes, ADATS, APVs (based on the Nyala), G-wagons, etc. Yet we lack the very backbone of a robust military; strategic airlift. Yes we have helicopters, CH-146 Griffons, pieces of shit. They are, in essence, civilian helicopters painted green. Just to put it all in perspective, the Australians also fly Griffons....for pilot training, so they in the future can fly Blackhawks in combat, a REAL military helicopter.
Why do men and women have to play Russian Roulet every day in Afghanistan because the leadership of this Nation aren't willing to spend money on something worthwhile? Hell, for a minute, lets discount the War and look closer to home. Remember the massive forest fires in B.C. a few years back? When we deployed from Edmonton, we had to truck most of our stuff out there. Yes we had support from the Griffons, but 408 Squadron in Edmonton hardly has enough to support the entire Brigade in a massive operation like fighting raging wild fires. An even better example was the G8 Summit in Kananaskis. The Army, from Edmonton once again, deployed to provide security in the mountains. I was part of a Radio Rebroadcast Site (RRB for short). We were assigned the job of setting up a transmitter site on the top of a mountain peak to facilitate communications from Kananaskis back to the Joint Operations Headquarters in Calgary. We were tasked to be on the mountain for two weeks, and had much equipment. We were armed (with live rounds) given the nature of the Operation, we had radios, batterys, chargers, a mini generator, tents, food, water, long-range observation scopes, vixam masts, sand bags, etc. Our eight ( 8 ) man section was loaded down completely. The original plan was to have two (2) Griffons pick us up (two as one couldn't carry us and our equipment) from Banff, and fly us up to the top of the mountain where we'd live for two weeks. However, due to a shortage of choppers (almost every CH-146 in the Canadian Forces was in Alberta), we were forced to carry everything literally UP the mountain. It took us close to 10 hours of hazardous accent, which near the end of our climb, resulted in one Private spraining his ankle badly (thing ballooned right up to the size of a grapefruit). To his credit he sucked it up, finished the climb, and did the whole two weeks on the mountain, albeit limping around in a lot of pain. The point to all this? Would we have broken our backs if the Government had some forethought? Or for that matter would that soldier have rolled his ankle while trying to cross a fallen tree with nearly 100lbs of gear on his back? The answer is no.
I am somewhat biased, being a soldier and all, but I also consider myself a realist. I don't think the people who defend and support this nation should be forced to endure hardship, not at the hands of the enemy, but at the hands of their elected leadership. I think Rick Mercer said it best;
I myself, and take it for what it's worth, don't think that a Nation as wealthy as Canada should be forced (by our own Government) to drive hundreds of kilometers to resupply forward units, in essence, gambling with the lives of our Supply Techs, MSE Ops, and their escorts.
We have one of the most well equiped militaries in the World, yet at the same time, one of the most ill-equiped....if you can fathom how that works. Our ground troops employ some amazing equipment; LAV-IIIs, Coyotes, ADATS, APVs (based on the Nyala), G-wagons, etc. Yet we lack the very backbone of a robust military; strategic airlift. Yes we have helicopters, CH-146 Griffons, pieces of shit. They are, in essence, civilian helicopters painted green. Just to put it all in perspective, the Australians also fly Griffons....for pilot training, so they in the future can fly Blackhawks in combat, a REAL military helicopter.
Why do men and women have to play Russian Roulet every day in Afghanistan because the leadership of this Nation aren't willing to spend money on something worthwhile? Hell, for a minute, lets discount the War and look closer to home. Remember the massive forest fires in B.C. a few years back? When we deployed from Edmonton, we had to truck most of our stuff out there. Yes we had support from the Griffons, but 408 Squadron in Edmonton hardly has enough to support the entire Brigade in a massive operation like fighting raging wild fires. An even better example was the G8 Summit in Kananaskis. The Army, from Edmonton once again, deployed to provide security in the mountains. I was part of a Radio Rebroadcast Site (RRB for short). We were assigned the job of setting up a transmitter site on the top of a mountain peak to facilitate communications from Kananaskis back to the Joint Operations Headquarters in Calgary. We were tasked to be on the mountain for two weeks, and had much equipment. We were armed (with live rounds) given the nature of the Operation, we had radios, batterys, chargers, a mini generator, tents, food, water, long-range observation scopes, vixam masts, sand bags, etc. Our eight ( 8 ) man section was loaded down completely. The original plan was to have two (2) Griffons pick us up (two as one couldn't carry us and our equipment) from Banff, and fly us up to the top of the mountain where we'd live for two weeks. However, due to a shortage of choppers (almost every CH-146 in the Canadian Forces was in Alberta), we were forced to carry everything literally UP the mountain. It took us close to 10 hours of hazardous accent, which near the end of our climb, resulted in one Private spraining his ankle badly (thing ballooned right up to the size of a grapefruit). To his credit he sucked it up, finished the climb, and did the whole two weeks on the mountain, albeit limping around in a lot of pain. The point to all this? Would we have broken our backs if the Government had some forethought? Or for that matter would that soldier have rolled his ankle while trying to cross a fallen tree with nearly 100lbs of gear on his back? The answer is no.
I am somewhat biased, being a soldier and all, but I also consider myself a realist. I don't think the people who defend and support this nation should be forced to endure hardship, not at the hands of the enemy, but at the hands of their elected leadership. I think Rick Mercer said it best;
Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs
Somewhat biased???
Please confirm Mogz, that the minister of defence consults you about decisions made for the whole of our armed forces, and not just the army. It would be very nice if we had at least 200,000 in our military, and new fighters for our airforce, and nuclear subs for the navy but these things are not going to happen for the next five or ten years anyway. We can't have everything we want.
Somewhat biased???
Please confirm Mogz, that the minister of defence consults you about decisions made for the whole of our armed forces, and not just the army. It would be very nice if we had at least 200,000 in our military, and new fighters for our airforce, and nuclear subs for the navy but these things are not going to happen for the next five or ten years anyway. We can't have everything we want.
RE: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs
Did I once in there say we should have everything we want? To save you from having to scroll up, no, I did not. I did however say that a military that belongs to a Nation as wealthy as ours should at least have the basic items to complete their tasks without undue risk to the men and women performing them. Fighters? Subs? Those things we CAN live without. While the CF-18 is indeed showing it's age, it isn't like we don't have any fighter capabilities. As for subs, I agree that the Victoria Class are pieces of shit, but at least we have something, that can do the job it is asked to do. Contrary to popular belief, our subs aren't meant for operations outside of Canadian waters. In fact, their designation is as a patrol submarine. Sure it'd be nice to have nuclear submarines, and F-16s, and all that jazz, but in reality, those things are less important than tactical heavy-life helicopters. The sad truth is, that the abilities of our Land Force are the most hampered. Our Navy, while small, is indeed one of the best equipped in the World. They have a wealth of manpower, and the vessels, even the Iroquois Class, perform well enough to do their job. The Air Force, is getting a whole host of new aircraft; Cormorants, Chinooks, C-17's, CC-130Js, they're in fact getting the best deal out of the three branches. Truth be told though, the Air Force is often out to lunch on how to spend their funds. A great example is the CADPAT raincoat purchase. The Air Force deemed that having an olive drab raincoat wasn't suitable for Air Force members, so out of their own pocket, the Air Force funded the research and development of CADPAT rain gear, to be issued only to Air Force personel. This rain gear cost MILLIONS to design, produce, and distribute. My question is why?! I have a friend who's an AVN Tech out in Shearwater, and even he laughs at it. Why does he have a CADPAT rain jacket that he wears on the tarmac, while I, being Land Force, have an olive drab rain jacket. Don't you think the Air Force could have spent that money on better things? I do.
Did I once in there say we should have everything we want? To save you from having to scroll up, no, I did not. I did however say that a military that belongs to a Nation as wealthy as ours should at least have the basic items to complete their tasks without undue risk to the men and women performing them. Fighters? Subs? Those things we CAN live without. While the CF-18 is indeed showing it's age, it isn't like we don't have any fighter capabilities. As for subs, I agree that the Victoria Class are pieces of shit, but at least we have something, that can do the job it is asked to do. Contrary to popular belief, our subs aren't meant for operations outside of Canadian waters. In fact, their designation is as a patrol submarine. Sure it'd be nice to have nuclear submarines, and F-16s, and all that jazz, but in reality, those things are less important than tactical heavy-life helicopters. The sad truth is, that the abilities of our Land Force are the most hampered. Our Navy, while small, is indeed one of the best equipped in the World. They have a wealth of manpower, and the vessels, even the Iroquois Class, perform well enough to do their job. The Air Force, is getting a whole host of new aircraft; Cormorants, Chinooks, C-17's, CC-130Js, they're in fact getting the best deal out of the three branches. Truth be told though, the Air Force is often out to lunch on how to spend their funds. A great example is the CADPAT raincoat purchase. The Air Force deemed that having an olive drab raincoat wasn't suitable for Air Force members, so out of their own pocket, the Air Force funded the research and development of CADPAT rain gear, to be issued only to Air Force personel. This rain gear cost MILLIONS to design, produce, and distribute. My question is why?! I have a friend who's an AVN Tech out in Shearwater, and even he laughs at it. Why does he have a CADPAT rain jacket that he wears on the tarmac, while I, being Land Force, have an olive drab rain jacket. Don't you think the Air Force could have spent that money on better things? I do.
Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs
What you want us to do is change our military so we can fight in American oil wars. Regardless of what we call the war in Afghanistan, it is a war to further the cause of Bush and his oil buddies. You say we don't have a helicopter that can operate in the extreme heat of Aghanistan. I say we don't have a helicopter to replace the Sea Kings. Our military should first be able to operate in our own climate. The half billion penalty for cancelling that helicopter order was inexcusable in two ways. One for signing on to such a deal, and two for cancelling when we knew there was such a penalty. I blame federal politicians of both political stripes for letting our military sink to almost the point of no return. I was half expecting someone to suggest we rent a military.
There are a whole raft of mods that could have been done to keep both the Hercs and the Hornets up to date. As it is, I doubt that even a third of our Hercs are flyable. It is also time to be making a decision about the next fighter/intercepter before it's too late. I will believe we are getting all these new aircraft when I see the orders.
What you want us to do is change our military so we can fight in American oil wars. Regardless of what we call the war in Afghanistan, it is a war to further the cause of Bush and his oil buddies. You say we don't have a helicopter that can operate in the extreme heat of Aghanistan. I say we don't have a helicopter to replace the Sea Kings. Our military should first be able to operate in our own climate. The half billion penalty for cancelling that helicopter order was inexcusable in two ways. One for signing on to such a deal, and two for cancelling when we knew there was such a penalty. I blame federal politicians of both political stripes for letting our military sink to almost the point of no return. I was half expecting someone to suggest we rent a military.
There are a whole raft of mods that could have been done to keep both the Hercs and the Hornets up to date. As it is, I doubt that even a third of our Hercs are flyable. It is also time to be making a decision about the next fighter/intercepter before it's too late. I will believe we are getting all these new aircraft when I see the orders.
Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs
I'm OK with the helicopters even if the contracts are probably pretty wonky since ultimately they are needed for domestic defense. What makes me uncomfortable is more and more the rhetoric seems to wrap itself around gearing up for overseas excursions that presumably will be justified by the neo-R2P rhetoric of do unto others before they do unto you.
I'm OK with the helicopters even if the contracts are probably pretty wonky since ultimately they are needed for domestic defense. What makes me uncomfortable is more and more the rhetoric seems to wrap itself around gearing up for overseas excursions that presumably will be justified by the neo-R2P rhetoric of do unto others before they do unto you.
Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs
We should have helicopters but that shouldn't mean we end our patrols in Afghanistan. They are dangerous yes, Canadian soldiers have died on them, however, if you isolate yourself from the Afghan population you will not win the war.
We should have helicopters but that shouldn't mean we end our patrols in Afghanistan. They are dangerous yes, Canadian soldiers have died on them, however, if you isolate yourself from the Afghan population you will not win the war.
RE: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs
Rick Hillier was on CTV last night stating the Canadian troops in Afghanistan had the very best of equipment and backup that any nation could provide. And he seems to be a guy that tells it like it is.
I know several of the troops there and one is a family member. I'll be the last to criticize them personally. But I am opposed to this mission. I don't see any meaningful, longstanding change possible.
Rick Hillier was on CTV last night stating the Canadian troops in Afghanistan had the very best of equipment and backup that any nation could provide. And he seems to be a guy that tells it like it is.
I know several of the troops there and one is a family member. I'll be the last to criticize them personally. But I am opposed to this mission. I don't see any meaningful, longstanding change possible.
Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs
We could arm ourselves ‘overnight’. Necessity is our only god. If we really wanted to spend decent money, (decent money starts at $100B cnd.),on decent equipment we could arm ourselves to the teeth in a year. 'Purchasing large and quick' would actually, in the long run, probably cost us less if we were going to spend as much as we should. Buy purchasing modern and capable equipment we avoid costs nearer down the road to upgrade; we avoid the pitfalls of buying second-hand junk (hand-me-down UK subs.; Russian buy 3-get one free<choke>).
My point is we end up costing ourselves much more imo, buy going with second or third-rate, depreciated equipment. Only for that expenditure to prove useless and we come full circle to buying another round of useless stuff earlier; mean time the forces never get what they need.
I could be wrong, but without looking I believe those lemon subs we bought are still costing us daily just to house the crap. Seems to me the CF have zero need for submarines, yet pretty much every single mission we go on, delivering pizzas or battalions, requires transport. Why are we short air transport again?.... 8O
For you conspiracy lovers:
I once read a report from an American independent (read: commercial ), think tank who reported to CSIS. The gist of it said: If the Canadians found themselves in the aftermath of a foreign terrorist attack of much less severity of 9/11 (some estimates going as low as zero casualties but a simple landmark attack), that the Canadians would rally around their armed forces and essentially “arm themselves overnight”, which included the procurement of personal arms.
.
We could arm ourselves ‘overnight’. Necessity is our only god. If we really wanted to spend decent money, (decent money starts at $100B cnd.),on decent equipment we could arm ourselves to the teeth in a year. 'Purchasing large and quick' would actually, in the long run, probably cost us less if we were going to spend as much as we should. Buy purchasing modern and capable equipment we avoid costs nearer down the road to upgrade; we avoid the pitfalls of buying second-hand junk (hand-me-down UK subs.; Russian buy 3-get one free<choke>).
My point is we end up costing ourselves much more imo, buy going with second or third-rate, depreciated equipment. Only for that expenditure to prove useless and we come full circle to buying another round of useless stuff earlier; mean time the forces never get what they need.
I could be wrong, but without looking I believe those lemon subs we bought are still costing us daily just to house the crap. Seems to me the CF have zero need for submarines, yet pretty much every single mission we go on, delivering pizzas or battalions, requires transport. Why are we short air transport again?.... 8O
For you conspiracy lovers:
I once read a report from an American independent (read: commercial ), think tank who reported to CSIS. The gist of it said: If the Canadians found themselves in the aftermath of a foreign terrorist attack of much less severity of 9/11 (some estimates going as low as zero casualties but a simple landmark attack), that the Canadians would rally around their armed forces and essentially “arm themselves overnight”, which included the procurement of personal arms.
.
Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs
First off you must be willing to consider that not all conflicts the CF are involved in are "oil wars". If you can do that then I would put forth that a healthy armed forces provides more pull in negotiations involving international, UN or 'Coalition'-style proposed actions. You can't really be listened to unless have something to withhold in the first place. We might just get the kind of 'pull' in these crucial early days that the media and leadership has led you to believe we have.
A healthily armed forces in that regard might've got NATO into Yugoslavia in time do something about it. Saving lives instead of picking up pieces. We wouldn't need the world to do anything we actually cared about, like maybe Rwanda --- it wasn't really our responsibility --- but we could've stopped it.
The way I see it there are two kinds of Canadians, and I mean no offence when I say this:
There are those who wish we had armed forces we could use/depend on, and they can't even look at the state of the CF without cringing.
There are those who think we should have next to no armed forces at all. To them even $1M more is far too much.
.
First off you must be willing to consider that not all conflicts the CF are involved in are "oil wars". If you can do that then I would put forth that a healthy armed forces provides more pull in negotiations involving international, UN or 'Coalition'-style proposed actions. You can't really be listened to unless have something to withhold in the first place. We might just get the kind of 'pull' in these crucial early days that the media and leadership has led you to believe we have.
A healthily armed forces in that regard might've got NATO into Yugoslavia in time do something about it. Saving lives instead of picking up pieces. We wouldn't need the world to do anything we actually cared about, like maybe Rwanda --- it wasn't really our responsibility --- but we could've stopped it.
The way I see it there are two kinds of Canadians, and I mean no offence when I say this:
There are those who wish we had armed forces we could use/depend on, and they can't even look at the state of the CF without cringing.
There are those who think we should have next to no armed forces at all. To them even $1M more is far too much.
.
Re: RE: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs l
thanks for that but I gotta tell you Hillier may be top-notch, I really have no idea, but he strikes me as a bit of a bureaucratic schmoe. I find what he says a little hard to believe when the Dutch are supposed to be adding complimentary equipment and haven't even shown up yet.
I wish your friends and family a safe return.
tamarin said:
thanks for that but I gotta tell you Hillier may be top-notch, I really have no idea, but he strikes me as a bit of a bureaucratic schmoe. I find what he says a little hard to believe when the Dutch are supposed to be adding complimentary equipment and haven't even shown up yet.
I wish your friends and family a safe return.
Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs
This will be old hat to some of you,
but in the late fifties I flew F-86s with the RCAF, mostly in Germany. At that time we had a fairly respectable military. Canadair built well over 2000 F-86s for our own use, and to supply Britain and west Germany. We even supplied a few to the U.S.
In it's day, the CF-100 was among the best all weather interceptors.
Canada had 300 front line fighters with One Air Div. in Europe, as well as a sizable defence force in Canada.
Our military had well over two hundred thousand in uniform. God only knows how our stupid politicians let the military get to the state it is in. Granted, it has been improved over the last couple years but there is a long way to go before I will be happy with it.
This will be old hat to some of you,
but in the late fifties I flew F-86s with the RCAF, mostly in Germany. At that time we had a fairly respectable military. Canadair built well over 2000 F-86s for our own use, and to supply Britain and west Germany. We even supplied a few to the U.S.
In it's day, the CF-100 was among the best all weather interceptors.
Canada had 300 front line fighters with One Air Div. in Europe, as well as a sizable defence force in Canada.
Our military had well over two hundred thousand in uniform. God only knows how our stupid politicians let the military get to the state it is in. Granted, it has been improved over the last couple years but there is a long way to go before I will be happy with it.
Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs
Fortunately we live in a prosperous, peaceful, and stable country. We did not become this way by staying at home waiting for the threat to come to us. If you love your standard of living, your ability to speak your mind, your priviledge to choose your government, and everything else that comes with being "Canadian" then you have to be willing to accept that we must defend being Canadian and preferably before it comes here. The cause of these threats can and always will be debated but it won't diminish the threat nor the need to defend ourselves from it. Many immediately blame the US and their policies, and they may be correct or they may not, but regardless, the present threat is not just against the US but all who enjoy being in a democratic, prosperous, and free country.
As for Helicopters and all the other military hardware the Conservatives are about to spend billions on, well Canada would not be in this situation if previous governments, both conservative and Liberal, hadn't taken our way of life and our military for granted. Now we're in a situation where a threat has emerged and we're not completly ready to meet it. Unfortunately it may come here to bite us in the preverbial ass.
BitWhys said:
Fortunately we live in a prosperous, peaceful, and stable country. We did not become this way by staying at home waiting for the threat to come to us. If you love your standard of living, your ability to speak your mind, your priviledge to choose your government, and everything else that comes with being "Canadian" then you have to be willing to accept that we must defend being Canadian and preferably before it comes here. The cause of these threats can and always will be debated but it won't diminish the threat nor the need to defend ourselves from it. Many immediately blame the US and their policies, and they may be correct or they may not, but regardless, the present threat is not just against the US but all who enjoy being in a democratic, prosperous, and free country.
As for Helicopters and all the other military hardware the Conservatives are about to spend billions on, well Canada would not be in this situation if previous governments, both conservative and Liberal, hadn't taken our way of life and our military for granted. Now we're in a situation where a threat has emerged and we're not completly ready to meet it. Unfortunately it may come here to bite us in the preverbial ass.
RE: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs
:roll:
I never said that the patrols should stop. I am against, however, our lads having to truck ammo, food, and water, up to 500km to FOBs because American helicopters aren't available. Cpl Randy Payne (someone I knew) was killed whilst on convoy duty in Helmand. Would he have been killed if he wasn't part of a convoy trucking munitions hundreds of kilometers to the front lines? I doubt it. If we had choppers there, he'd probably still be alive today.
Bureaucratic and Hillier? Two words that don't belong in the same sentance. However, i'm not shocked considering who it's coming from. The Dutch are deploying to Afghanistan this summer. The Dutch, like us, have logistical issues due to underfunding. They can't just pack up and move a light brigade in to Afghanistan over night.
The subs were bought for coastal surveillance. The old Oberon Class were used A LOT to interdict drug runners and provide seaborne observation of the coastline. Why does eveything our Nation does these days have to somehow tie in with the United States? Where'd you hear this doozy?
:roll:
I never said that the patrols should stop. I am against, however, our lads having to truck ammo, food, and water, up to 500km to FOBs because American helicopters aren't available. Cpl Randy Payne (someone I knew) was killed whilst on convoy duty in Helmand. Would he have been killed if he wasn't part of a convoy trucking munitions hundreds of kilometers to the front lines? I doubt it. If we had choppers there, he'd probably still be alive today.
Bureaucratic and Hillier? Two words that don't belong in the same sentance. However, i'm not shocked considering who it's coming from. The Dutch are deploying to Afghanistan this summer. The Dutch, like us, have logistical issues due to underfunding. They can't just pack up and move a light brigade in to Afghanistan over night.
The subs were bought for coastal surveillance. The old Oberon Class were used A LOT to interdict drug runners and provide seaborne observation of the coastline. Why does eveything our Nation does these days have to somehow tie in with the United States? Where'd you hear this doozy?
Re: RE: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs l
The Victoria Class aren't allowed out to sea due to the vast majority of flaws in them. They are, in essence, "grounded" until further notice. To my knowledge, the only traveling Victoria Classes have done, are on their trips over from Scotland or England, or whever the hell we took Command of them. The U.K. Yes, that place.
Exactly my point. The Brits offered to sell us 4 Trafalgar Class Nuclear Attack Subs back in 2000. We turned them down and bought Upholders.
BitWhys said:
The Victoria Class aren't allowed out to sea due to the vast majority of flaws in them. They are, in essence, "grounded" until further notice. To my knowledge, the only traveling Victoria Classes have done, are on their trips over from Scotland or England, or whever the hell we took Command of them. The U.K. Yes, that place.
Exactly my point. The Brits offered to sell us 4 Trafalgar Class Nuclear Attack Subs back in 2000. We turned them down and bought Upholders.