The title makes it seem like an 'or' proposition. As in its either the C17's or the J series Hercs. I can't seen why CF can't go for a mix. Anyway, if this deal comes to fruition, it will mean a tremendous boost in CF airlift capability.Hillier's aircraft plan in doubt
Ottawa considers buying long-range C-17s, but top general favours short-haul Hercules
MICHAEL DEN TANDT
OTTAWA -- The Harper government is strongly considering buying up to six Boeing C-17 long-range military transport planes at a cost of more than $1.2-billion, a move that would overturn the plans of both the previous Liberal government and the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier.
The purchase, which defence industry sources say could be announced in the coming federal budget, would dramatically increase the Canadian Forces' strategic reach, enabling them for the first time to move a substantial number of troops and equipment anywhere in the world within a few days.
It would also likely rule out, for the time being, Gen. Hillier's proposal -- announced in the dying days of the previous Liberal government -- to spend $4.6-billion on 16 short-haul tactical transport planes, most likely Lockheed Martin C-130Js.
"If they go with six [C-17s], that means they'll delay tactical lift," a source close to the Defence Department said. "Hillier will react to that."
The C-17s cost $250-million each. The price could drop depending on market conditions and on how many planes are bought, industry sources say.
Preliminary discussions have already taken place between Defence Department and U.S. military officials on whether Canada could get speedy access to some of the Boeing C-17s already on order to the U.S. military, sources say."We know that officials have spoken," a defence industry source said.
The U.S. government has made it known through its embassy in Ottawa that it would facilitate the purchase, the source said.
A similar arrangement was recently struck with Australia, which is buying four of the planes.
Senator Colin Kenny, former head of the Senate defence committee and a long-time advocate of greater defence spending, said new strategic airlift capability is long overdue. "We'll be a hell of a lot better off and there'll be a whole lot less strain on the system," he said.
Mr. Kenny cautioned, however, that such a purchase must not come at the expense of buying new tactical or short-haul transport planes. "Both have to come. And any solution that doesn't include a mix is not a satisfactory one for Canada."
The U.S.-made Boeing aircraft, which on the inside are roughly the size of three volleyball courts placed end-to-end, have four times the payload and twice the range of the C-130 Hercules. Unlike the much smaller Hercules, they can also be refuelled in flight.
Sources say the government would announce it plans to buy a fixed number of strategic aircraft by a certain date, possibly as early as a year from now.
The requirements would state that the aircraft must also have tactical or short-haul capability, which the C-17 does, to ease pressure on the badly outdated Hercules fleet.
That requirement would rule out the Russian-built Antonov, which the Canadian military has rented to deploy its Disaster Assistance Response Team.
Unlike the C-17, which can land on rough runways as short as 900 metres, the Antonov requires 3,000 metres of paved strip.
Likewise, the one-year time requirement would eliminate Airbus's A400M military transport, which is still in development and is not expected to fly until 2008.
A spokesman for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said yesterday that no procurement decisions have yet been made, and declined further comment.
Defence Department officials have tussled for months over airlift, the most pressing of a dozen big-ticket hardware replacement decisions faced by the long-neglected Canadian military.
Canada now owns 31 C-130s, nine of which are relatively new H-model versions while the rest are ancient E-models, which are being grounded at a rate of two or three a year.
In November, then-defence-minister Bill Graham went to the Liberal cabinet with a $12.2-billion plan to buy no fewer than 50 new military aircraft, including short-haul transports, search-and-rescue craft and heavy-lift helicopters.
The plan foundered because of concerns that the accelerated procurement process was unfairly skewed toward Lockheed Martin, at the expense of Boeing and Airbus.
Gen. Hillier is known to strongly favour the C-130J transport, having worked with it as an operations commander in Afghanistan and Bosnia. Mr. O'Connor believes just as strongly that strategic lift is paramount.
Senior officials in the Defence Department met last week to discuss procurement priorities, known internally as the defence capabilities plan, sources familiar with the meeting say.
During the meeting, department officials were told the new government intends to buy strategic lift, new fixed-wing search-and-rescue craft, support ships and helicopters -- in that order.
Mr. O'Connor's reasoning, sources say, is that the new Hercules planes couldn't be available to Canada until 2008-2009, at the earliest, and the government wants to begin solving its airlift problem much sooner than that. He is also mindful of the C-17's dual capability as a tactical airlifter, sources say.
source
Canada: Govt considering up to six C17's
- Thread starter Supe
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
What the "liberals" don't see is that a C-17 can do the work of 4 C-130's. All they see is the price tag. They don't bother to compare it to the pricetag of 4x C-130J's, or the maintenance bills over 30 years. Canada could probably afford to buy a single Sqn's worth of C-130J's, (around 8-12) a reduced Sqn of C-17's (4-6) and achieve a greater airlift capability, both Tactical AND a Strategic lift, at a cheaper price than 16x new build C-130J's.
The purchase of the C-130J's alone, does not provide for a strategic airlift capability of any kind...
Alternatively Canada may be able to purchase the C-17's now to replace it's oldest C-130's, and keep the C-130H's in-service until A400M is available. This would eliminate political concerns of favouritism for American companies, would provide a very good airlift capability, and would allow an overall reduction in maintenance and crewing costs.
At least 8x A400M's and 6x C-17's would provide greater airlift capability, than the entire fleet of 31 Herc's do now, with less than half the crew requirements, they have now...
The purchase of the C-130J's alone, does not provide for a strategic airlift capability of any kind...
Alternatively Canada may be able to purchase the C-17's now to replace it's oldest C-130's, and keep the C-130H's in-service until A400M is available. This would eliminate political concerns of favouritism for American companies, would provide a very good airlift capability, and would allow an overall reduction in maintenance and crewing costs.
At least 8x A400M's and 6x C-17's would provide greater airlift capability, than the entire fleet of 31 Herc's do now, with less than half the crew requirements, they have now...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4
Don't tell that to the Antonov advocates. ;- ) Mind, it's not easy to dismiss the Antonov's. Outside of the C5's, there's nothing quite like it. Unfortunately, if GF's appraisal build quality is correct, they are a disaster waiting to happen. AFAIK, only two down though...Big-E said:
An Antonov and Airbus consortium deal could make the An124-100's an attractive proposition to Western militaries if quality control was tightly enforced.
A year is too long if concerns about CF's Herc fleet are on the level... the Canadian Govt need to be fast tracking this.
Last edited:
They need to get the order in now.
I think that there is a cut-off date for the C-17 around mid-summer July?, as I recall.
If Canada is going to operate in the Middle East she needs the capability of the C-17. And so does the UK. Its about time we got ou order in aswell.
Chris
I think that there is a cut-off date for the C-17 around mid-summer July?, as I recall.
If Canada is going to operate in the Middle East she needs the capability of the C-17. And so does the UK. Its about time we got ou order in aswell.
Chris
I fell in love with this place the day I saw it in Doha, Qatar; it is indeed a very good buy (if the deal goes through). One thing I do like about the new conservative government is that they definitely know how to spend the tax payers' dollars; instead of giving rapists and murderers degrees in prisons, but help our soldiers (my brother and uncle are officers in the Air Force).
all i can say is at last as its strat lift has been one of the most critisised aspects of the candain forces
ughh....while strat lift would be nice..thats not what we need...
We need procurement to be shaped around our expeditionary force in Afghanistan. Getting our troops to theatre has never been a problem. Supporting them in the combat zone is.
Above all, we need heavy lift helicoptors and more armored patrol vehicles. After six C-17's, where will the money be for equipment that will actually support our boots on the ground?
We need procurement to be shaped around our expeditionary force in Afghanistan. Getting our troops to theatre has never been a problem. Supporting them in the combat zone is.
Above all, we need heavy lift helicoptors and more armored patrol vehicles. After six C-17's, where will the money be for equipment that will actually support our boots on the ground?
Just found this thread after going back a little ways, so I hope you don't mind me commenting on it.
The fact of the matter, IMHO anyways, is that we need a Strategic Airlift Capability comprised of 3 C-17's and about 20 Hercs. Why shy away from the Airbus? Simple. The most hated PM in Canada was linked to them and even though he was exonerated from any illegal actions the present day minority government Conservatives want to stay away from all the guff that surrounds him.
C-17's would allow us to actually move our own DART (Disaster Assistance Response Team) and its material along with all of our troops all around the world in a very quick time frame and, no offence to all the Antonov lovers out there, it would mean we no longer had to rent out the planes from the Ukraine.
The Hercs are a logical step forward. Why you may ask? Familiarity. Our crews are already familiar with the airframe and the avionics and navigations systems on the new J are going to be improvements on the vehicles we operate currently.
All that being said, I think that you'll still find that 2 billion dollars a year which has been guaranteed in the Federal Budget will go to the troops on the ground who, after 15 years of being gouted (personal opinion) by the Feds, need the equipment if we are to stay in Afghanistan for any longer than the 2009 mandate we just voted on in parliament.
Finally, a closer relationship vis a vis business and defence is being sought by the Conservatives with the US and as such you are seeing the 2 countries do more together with regards to NATO, NORAD as well as Afghanistan. Canada purchasing US equipment would increase operability between the 2 countries in theatres that they share involvement such as the ones stated above and would reduce the risk of any "Friendly Fire" incidents which the Canadian media seem to live off of. It'd be a win-win situation for both countries IMHO.
The fact of the matter, IMHO anyways, is that we need a Strategic Airlift Capability comprised of 3 C-17's and about 20 Hercs. Why shy away from the Airbus? Simple. The most hated PM in Canada was linked to them and even though he was exonerated from any illegal actions the present day minority government Conservatives want to stay away from all the guff that surrounds him.
C-17's would allow us to actually move our own DART (Disaster Assistance Response Team) and its material along with all of our troops all around the world in a very quick time frame and, no offence to all the Antonov lovers out there, it would mean we no longer had to rent out the planes from the Ukraine.
The Hercs are a logical step forward. Why you may ask? Familiarity. Our crews are already familiar with the airframe and the avionics and navigations systems on the new J are going to be improvements on the vehicles we operate currently.
All that being said, I think that you'll still find that 2 billion dollars a year which has been guaranteed in the Federal Budget will go to the troops on the ground who, after 15 years of being gouted (personal opinion) by the Feds, need the equipment if we are to stay in Afghanistan for any longer than the 2009 mandate we just voted on in parliament.
Finally, a closer relationship vis a vis business and defence is being sought by the Conservatives with the US and as such you are seeing the 2 countries do more together with regards to NATO, NORAD as well as Afghanistan. Canada purchasing US equipment would increase operability between the 2 countries in theatres that they share involvement such as the ones stated above and would reduce the risk of any "Friendly Fire" incidents which the Canadian media seem to live off of. It'd be a win-win situation for both countries IMHO.
Last edited:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1d82f90c-d3d2-4e83-b37f-92d88a63d16f&k=13773
Tories set to sink billions into cargo planes for military
Boeing expected to win $2.5B deal; $1B more to be spent on smaller crafts
Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail
Font: * * * * Mike Blanchfield, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, June 03, 2006
As early as Monday, the Harper government will announce details of its multibillion-dollar equipment upgrade for the Canadian Forces, including the purchase of a new fleet of long-range cargo planes and the much-anticipated replacement of its aging Hercules transports.
The upgrades still require a final rubber stamp from cabinet, but it will represent the Conservative government's first response to the wish list presented to cabinet on May 30 by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. At that meeting, Mr. O'Connor pitched at least six major capital projects worth more than $8 billion.
Most of those projects, including armoured trucks, ships and other aircraft, have been pushed back to the fall, but two major transport aircraft purchases are ready to launch.
The most controversial of the two will likely be the purchase of four C-17 Globemaster long-range strategic transports at a cost of $1 billion for the planes themselves, plus a 20-year support and maintenance plan that will bring the overall cost to $2.5 billion.
The government is expected to "sole source" the purchase of the four aircraft from the American manufacturer, Boeing, instead of opening up the usual competition for bids for such an expensive purchase. The government is allowed to sole source if it can make the case that no other similar airplane can meet its needs. The only other large, long-range transports available are Russian-built.
The Russian government has attempted to cut into the competition by spearheading its own military trade mission to Ottawa this week, but it appears Canada has decided to buy American. The Forces will likely receive one of the four new C-17s late this year off the Boeing assembly line as part of an order that was already under way for the Australian air force.
Canada doesn't own large transports such as the C-17 and has normally leased such large planes from Russian or Ukrainian companies to carry its heavy equipment on overseas missions.
The Liberals considered a plan to buy large aircraft six years ago, but scrapped the idea. Since then, the deployment of the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team to two major crises -- the Dec. 26, 2004, Asian tsunami and last year's Central Asian earthquake -- has been delayed because transport was not readily available for its personnel and heavy equipment.
Under the government's new accrual accounting methods, the price of the expensive new planes -- among the largest transports in the world and bigger than anything now owned by the air force -- would essentially be spread over the life of the aircraft instead of requiring a lump-sum infusion of defence spending up front.
The Tories will also revive part of a plan announced by the Liberal government shortly before the last federal election to replace the aging fleet of Hercules transports at a cost of $3 billion for up to 16 new planes.
The government is expected to open that project for competitive bidding, but industry insiders say the specifications will likely favour the U.S. firm Lockheed Martin's modern version of the Hercules, the C-130J.
Sources say the Conservatives could not risk sole-sourcing two large airplane purchases, so they expected the statement of requirements for the Hercules replacement will be brief -- as short as one or two pages as opposed to thousands of pages of detailed specifications usually placed before bidders -- and it is expected to call for delivery of the planes by about two years.
That would eliminate the C-130J's main competitor, the Airbus A-400, which is still in the design phase and isn't expected to go into production until 2009.
Many of Canada's shorter-range tactical-lift Hercules date back to the 1960s and it is the workhorse of the current deployment to Afghanistan.
Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, has said that replacing the Hercules was the top equipment priority of the military and that, if the fleet was ever grounded, Canada would be unable to sustain its overseas deployments.
Parliament recently voted to extend the Canadian military mission to Afghanistan to 2009. There are currently 2,300 troops in Afghanistan.
Other major equipment purchases that were part of the Conservatives' ambitious "Canada First" election platform for the military are being pushed back to later in the year. These include armoured trucks and transport helicopters for the army in Afghanistan, fixed-wing search and rescue planes, a joint supply ship, Arctic icebreakers, and unmanned surveillance aircraft, or drones, that could help patrol the Arctic and both coasts.
Gen. Hillier and Mr. O'Connor have clashed on what the military needs most in terms of airlift. Mr. O'Connor wants a large airplane that can transport equipment overseas, such as the C-17, but Gen. Hillier says more Hercules, which can conduct more missions in hostile theatres under gruelling conditions, are needed.
____________________
YES!
Tories set to sink billions into cargo planes for military
Boeing expected to win $2.5B deal; $1B more to be spent on smaller crafts
Article Tools
Printer friendly
Font: * * * * Mike Blanchfield, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, June 03, 2006
As early as Monday, the Harper government will announce details of its multibillion-dollar equipment upgrade for the Canadian Forces, including the purchase of a new fleet of long-range cargo planes and the much-anticipated replacement of its aging Hercules transports.
The upgrades still require a final rubber stamp from cabinet, but it will represent the Conservative government's first response to the wish list presented to cabinet on May 30 by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. At that meeting, Mr. O'Connor pitched at least six major capital projects worth more than $8 billion.
Most of those projects, including armoured trucks, ships and other aircraft, have been pushed back to the fall, but two major transport aircraft purchases are ready to launch.
The most controversial of the two will likely be the purchase of four C-17 Globemaster long-range strategic transports at a cost of $1 billion for the planes themselves, plus a 20-year support and maintenance plan that will bring the overall cost to $2.5 billion.
The government is expected to "sole source" the purchase of the four aircraft from the American manufacturer, Boeing, instead of opening up the usual competition for bids for such an expensive purchase. The government is allowed to sole source if it can make the case that no other similar airplane can meet its needs. The only other large, long-range transports available are Russian-built.
The Russian government has attempted to cut into the competition by spearheading its own military trade mission to Ottawa this week, but it appears Canada has decided to buy American. The Forces will likely receive one of the four new C-17s late this year off the Boeing assembly line as part of an order that was already under way for the Australian air force.
Canada doesn't own large transports such as the C-17 and has normally leased such large planes from Russian or Ukrainian companies to carry its heavy equipment on overseas missions.
The Liberals considered a plan to buy large aircraft six years ago, but scrapped the idea. Since then, the deployment of the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team to two major crises -- the Dec. 26, 2004, Asian tsunami and last year's Central Asian earthquake -- has been delayed because transport was not readily available for its personnel and heavy equipment.
Under the government's new accrual accounting methods, the price of the expensive new planes -- among the largest transports in the world and bigger than anything now owned by the air force -- would essentially be spread over the life of the aircraft instead of requiring a lump-sum infusion of defence spending up front.
The Tories will also revive part of a plan announced by the Liberal government shortly before the last federal election to replace the aging fleet of Hercules transports at a cost of $3 billion for up to 16 new planes.
The government is expected to open that project for competitive bidding, but industry insiders say the specifications will likely favour the U.S. firm Lockheed Martin's modern version of the Hercules, the C-130J.
Sources say the Conservatives could not risk sole-sourcing two large airplane purchases, so they expected the statement of requirements for the Hercules replacement will be brief -- as short as one or two pages as opposed to thousands of pages of detailed specifications usually placed before bidders -- and it is expected to call for delivery of the planes by about two years.
That would eliminate the C-130J's main competitor, the Airbus A-400, which is still in the design phase and isn't expected to go into production until 2009.
Many of Canada's shorter-range tactical-lift Hercules date back to the 1960s and it is the workhorse of the current deployment to Afghanistan.
Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, has said that replacing the Hercules was the top equipment priority of the military and that, if the fleet was ever grounded, Canada would be unable to sustain its overseas deployments.
Parliament recently voted to extend the Canadian military mission to Afghanistan to 2009. There are currently 2,300 troops in Afghanistan.
Other major equipment purchases that were part of the Conservatives' ambitious "Canada First" election platform for the military are being pushed back to later in the year. These include armoured trucks and transport helicopters for the army in Afghanistan, fixed-wing search and rescue planes, a joint supply ship, Arctic icebreakers, and unmanned surveillance aircraft, or drones, that could help patrol the Arctic and both coasts.
Gen. Hillier and Mr. O'Connor have clashed on what the military needs most in terms of airlift. Mr. O'Connor wants a large airplane that can transport equipment overseas, such as the C-17, but Gen. Hillier says more Hercules, which can conduct more missions in hostile theatres under gruelling conditions, are needed.
____________________
YES!
That is a mighty good thing.
With the hope of having a C-17 in Trenton by the year end in Canadian colours we suddenly are taking steps forward instead of back. I'm glad to see that we'll be able to look after the components of our air force that need it, now if we could only do something with our Hornets! Not that they're bad, just that the air frames are getting a little bit tired.
I'm glad to see a strong relationship building again with our allies to the south and can't wait to see what else this will open the doors to.
With the hope of having a C-17 in Trenton by the year end in Canadian colours we suddenly are taking steps forward instead of back. I'm glad to see that we'll be able to look after the components of our air force that need it, now if we could only do something with our Hornets! Not that they're bad, just that the air frames are getting a little bit tired.
I'm glad to see a strong relationship building again with our allies to the south and can't wait to see what else this will open the doors to.
Cootamundra
New Member
Sorry my Canadian friends but we would like our C-17s first and as we ordered em first you may well have to get in linePhillTaj said:
Sounds like an excellent procurement decision is about to be made. And one that will see our respective airforces with very similar numbers and kit. All you need now is to buy 4-6 WedgeTails and we'll be in alignment!
Being a journalism student, I can tell you why the headline states that. People pay attention when any type of monetary figure is thrown into a sentence because it is the most important thing to people.Supe said:
Canadians, outside and even some inside major cities, know that planes aren't cheap and are willing to spend the money to get us and our troops (who they say they support but don't support the mission - ugh) to the areas of the world where we know that we can make a difference.
Cootamundra - we live closer!
Actually, our PM is a good friend and close ally of your PM John Howard so my guess is that we'll be doing alot of things similarly over the next little while which, IMHO, is GREAT! After 15+ years of gouging and raping of our forces all in the name of balancing the budget, it's about time we gave to our troops the best that we can afford and the best that they deserve. After all, they are the ones who protect and who are willing to die for this country and all it stands for.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #16
From what I've been reading the issue is ideology and tight defence budgets reflect that. The shift away from holistic warfighting capability (balanced elements) to peacekeeping in which the CF was downsized and downgraded. Apparently there are no plans replace Leos and CF mechanised elements will shift to mostly a wheeled fleet.410Cougar said:
Whenever I read an article on Canadian defence from domestic media, I'm left with a distinct negative impression of the role the CF if it operates outside of its 'usual' peacekeeping operations. It appears the Canadian media does not appreciate defence or see it as relevant outside of narrow proscribed role. I look at NZ as a nation in which the political class let the anti-defence rot set in. Now they think they can pick and choose capabilities. If it is 'too lethal or warlike', you can ditch them. There is a feeling of a similiarity between the two nations on approach to Defence.
Supe,
Media will always be anti war - not necessarily anti military. Our role in the world has changed to that of Peacemaker instead of peacekeeper as it was before.
Media is paid to take a story as deep as it'll go and because the big newspapers are all in "liberal" cities, you'll always get liberal views. They need to eat their food too.
I've decided to enlist and persue a career in Public Affairs (Air Force) because of the actions of certain media who don't know how to respect our flag and the men and women who serve it. If you want more detail to that then email me: [email protected].
Will we become NZ? Nope. We play to big a role in NATO, NORAD and in the world stage to not be involved. While the Forces were decimated, they'll be back because now we have people who realize they must provide protection for the country we all live in - hence the purchase of C-17's and Hercs (hopefully).
While we don't live in a hot zone like yourself, we take pride in who we are and we look after that which needs looking after. That is why you'll see plenty of news from Canada in the years to come.
Cheers.
Media will always be anti war - not necessarily anti military. Our role in the world has changed to that of Peacemaker instead of peacekeeper as it was before.
Media is paid to take a story as deep as it'll go and because the big newspapers are all in "liberal" cities, you'll always get liberal views. They need to eat their food too.
I've decided to enlist and persue a career in Public Affairs (Air Force) because of the actions of certain media who don't know how to respect our flag and the men and women who serve it. If you want more detail to that then email me: [email protected].
Will we become NZ? Nope. We play to big a role in NATO, NORAD and in the world stage to not be involved. While the Forces were decimated, they'll be back because now we have people who realize they must provide protection for the country we all live in - hence the purchase of C-17's and Hercs (hopefully).
While we don't live in a hot zone like yourself, we take pride in who we are and we look after that which needs looking after. That is why you'll see plenty of news from Canada in the years to come.
Cheers.
Pursuit Curve
New Member
410Cougar said:
Cougar, first of all the 'media' lives off of friendly fire incidents because the happen, not because they are invented.
The C 17 is a good buy, it combimes both Strategic and tactical in one airframe, and in my opinion it would also ease support and logistics to have one aircraft type to maintain instead of 2. Yes, teh herc has and will still do sterling support for the military and humanitarian support, and I am sure taht the Herc looked mighty macho in Afghanistan, but I am also confident that the C17 would make alot of CF personnel very happy with increased lift and deployability that the C17 has over the Herc.
Pursuit,
I don't disagree with you, Friendly Fire incidents do happen and need to be reported on, absolutely.
My main issue with the Media is that they never report on anything good that Canadian soldiers/forces do or report on any of the situations that they find themselves in.
Case in point, Ret'd Major General Lewis MacKenzie was in Bosnia looking after our Peacekeeping forces there. While feeding and playing with a bunch of kids between the ages of 6-10 through the barricade at their camp a mortar landed and simply disintegrated 6 out of the 9 kids. CDN troops then rushed outside, putting themselves at risk and got the other 3 kids who were severely injured and saved their lives.
Next point, same region, Anglo troops are trapped in a building which is about to be destroyed by Serbian forces who know and don't care about the Canadian Peacekeepers in the building. While travelling to the camp to "round up a posse" to go save the troops, Mackenzie is passed by a group of francophone troops who already got word of what was going on and who mobilized themselves to go get their brothers in arms - without even being asked. And yet we focus on separatism more than brotherhood.
Where were these stories on the National? How about CTV? Global? Globe and Mail? National Post? They weren't. Instead front page news for this country at the time was debating whether or not the GST should be scrapped. Its enough to want to make you cry.
The C-17 will give us a great platform with which to aid our troops in their deployment. Pursuit, do you think we'll see a mix of both Hercs and C-17's in Afghanistan or will we just stick with one type in the theatre?
I don't disagree with you, Friendly Fire incidents do happen and need to be reported on, absolutely.
My main issue with the Media is that they never report on anything good that Canadian soldiers/forces do or report on any of the situations that they find themselves in.
Case in point, Ret'd Major General Lewis MacKenzie was in Bosnia looking after our Peacekeeping forces there. While feeding and playing with a bunch of kids between the ages of 6-10 through the barricade at their camp a mortar landed and simply disintegrated 6 out of the 9 kids. CDN troops then rushed outside, putting themselves at risk and got the other 3 kids who were severely injured and saved their lives.
Next point, same region, Anglo troops are trapped in a building which is about to be destroyed by Serbian forces who know and don't care about the Canadian Peacekeepers in the building. While travelling to the camp to "round up a posse" to go save the troops, Mackenzie is passed by a group of francophone troops who already got word of what was going on and who mobilized themselves to go get their brothers in arms - without even being asked. And yet we focus on separatism more than brotherhood.
Where were these stories on the National? How about CTV? Global? Globe and Mail? National Post? They weren't. Instead front page news for this country at the time was debating whether or not the GST should be scrapped. Its enough to want to make you cry.
The C-17 will give us a great platform with which to aid our troops in their deployment. Pursuit, do you think we'll see a mix of both Hercs and C-17's in Afghanistan or will we just stick with one type in the theatre?
Pursuit Curve
New Member
410Cougar said:
Cougar, no amount of reporting can make up for the past, but from what I have seen the National News outlets have quite a strong contingent in Afghanistan, and both CBC and CTV have had journo's out on patrol with the Canadians...
But back on topic, I think that the Herc should serve out its remaining hours in Canada, supporting our growing realisation that our arctic and other regions are in desperate need of military presence and rapid transport of assets to those regions, Use the C17 for our international (Strategic) support and keep the Herc as a reserve for then them.