Jump to content


Photo

LAV III Upgrade Project Signed


68 replies to this topic

#1 Smallc

Smallc

    as in just a little

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Waterhen, Manitoba
  • Interests:Politics and Cars

Posted 21 October 2011 - 05:36 PM

http://www.lfpress.c...1/18859856.html

This upgrade will make the fleet viable until 2035. Increased mine protection, more power, a larger hatch, and much needed repairs will keep the fleet relevant until its retirement in 24 years. The Conservatives have been relatively good for the military.

Now, can we get more C-17s? Australia has a 5th on order, and a 6th n consideration, and our fleet is getting even more use than theirs.

#2 bush_cheney2004

bush_cheney2004

    Senior Mocker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA! USA! USA!

Posted 21 October 2011 - 05:47 PM

Now, can we get more C-17s? Australia has a 5th on order, and a 6th n consideration, and our fleet is getting even more use than theirs.



Not anytime soon...India has locked up the last production line orders through 2014.

No more cutting in line, Canada.


http://articles.lati...o-jets-20110607

Economics trumps Virtue.

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God...."


#3 Guest_Derek L_*

Guest_Derek L_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 October 2011 - 05:55 PM

http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2011/10/21/18859856.html
Now, can we get more C-17s? Australia has a 5th on order, and a 6th n consideration, and our fleet is getting even more use than theirs.



I agree, privatize SAR and put the allocated money for the FWSAR program into purchasing more Jercs and Globemasters

#4 Smallc

Smallc

    as in just a little

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Waterhen, Manitoba
  • Interests:Politics and Cars

Posted 21 October 2011 - 05:56 PM

I agree, privatize SAR and put the allocated money for the FWSAR program into purchasing more Jercs and Globemasters


Actually, I was thinking that they should get for FWSAR - wait for it - the C-130J. We wouldn't necessarily even need more C-17s if we had 17 more C-130Js.

#5 Guest_Derek L_*

Guest_Derek L_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 October 2011 - 06:05 PM

Actually, I was thinking that they should get for FWSAR - wait for it - the C-130J. We wouldn't necessarily even need more C-17s if we had 17 more C-130Js.


That’s an idea……The Jercs go for about 75 million per (Not including spares etc) and the CC-17s about 200 million a pop……..another 6 CC-17s and those 17 Jercs, without the costing of additional spares & maintainace etc, could be had for about 2.5-3 billion flyaway costs…….around what’s budgeted for FWSAR……I still think primary SAR should be privatized.

#6 cybercoma

cybercoma

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A Few Acres of Snow

Posted 21 October 2011 - 06:42 PM

Fighter jets, ships, LAV III upgrades, more prisons... Boy I'm glad the Conservatives a have a majority. The wars are coming to a close and crime is at the lowest it has ever been. Meanwhile, baby boomers are coming into retirement and needing increasingly more healthcare. I'm glad they have their priorities straight. :rolleyes:

#7 Smallc

Smallc

    as in just a little

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Waterhen, Manitoba
  • Interests:Politics and Cars

Posted 21 October 2011 - 06:53 PM

Fighter jets, ships, LAV III upgrades, more prisons... Boy I'm glad the Conservatives a have a majority. The wars are coming to a close and crime is at the lowest it has ever been. Meanwhile, baby boomers are coming into retirement and needing increasingly more healthcare. I'm glad they have their priorities straight. :rolleyes:


It's not the job of the federal government to fund healthcare. They do to an extent to enforce the CHA, but they're only going to fund it at the rate they currently are going forward (with the same escalator).

Also, it isn't as if you suddenly get to stop funding the military at the end of a war. Even the NDP promised to continue the current military spending levels....although I expect the Conservatives may in fact increase them when the budget is balanced.

#8 Smallc

Smallc

    as in just a little

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Waterhen, Manitoba
  • Interests:Politics and Cars

Posted 21 October 2011 - 06:54 PM

another 6 CC-17s


I've heard rumours of 4 more, but we'll have to wait and see. It actually wouldn't cost that much in the grand scheme of things.

I'm also a bit nervous about the idea of civilians handling extremely dangerous SAR scenarios.

Edited by Smallc, 21 October 2011 - 06:54 PM.


#9 Guest_Derek L_*

Guest_Derek L_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 October 2011 - 08:10 PM

I'm also a bit nervous about the idea of civilians handling extremely dangerous SAR scenarios.


Why? It's done in other countries.


Give it to the Coast Guard and/or the Provinces.

Edited by Derek L, 21 October 2011 - 08:13 PM.


#10 Smallc

Smallc

    as in just a little

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Waterhen, Manitoba
  • Interests:Politics and Cars

Posted 21 October 2011 - 08:13 PM

Why? It's done in other countries.


I suppose it's possible, I'm just not sure about it.

#11 cybercoma

cybercoma

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A Few Acres of Snow

Posted 22 October 2011 - 07:28 AM

It's not the job of the federal government to fund healthcare. They do to an extent to enforce the CHA, but they're only going to fund it at the rate they currently are going forward (with the same escalator).

Then we're going to be in a bit of a jam with provinces like NB. The provincial debt is completely out of control and those of working age keep leaving the province to work out West. Meanwhile, retirees remain behind and are going to need healthcare funding going forward. The problem with healthcare is that the peopel who use it are not the ones paying into it. This is going to be more or less a national problem. If the federal government continues to ignore it and keeps committing us to contracts on toys for the military and new prisons, we're going to be F'ed. I'm a hell of a lot less concerned about being able to invade foreign countries than I am about what our healthcare systems will look like in another 30-40 years at this rate.

Also, it isn't as if you suddenly get to stop funding the military at the end of a war. Even the NDP promised to continue the current military spending levels....although I expect the Conservatives may in fact increase them when the budget is balanced.

I'm not even suggesting that the "stop funding the military". You're better than that.

#12 Topaz

Topaz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,308 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 12:12 PM

The Tories can buy all the toys for the military it wants but if you don't have the man/woman power to run them they just rust from sitting there. Would they increase pay to equal their own because I think the military should have as much pay and pensions as the MP's do. If the Tories, don't increase pay but need the man/woman power, the only other way is mandatory 5 year run in the military for ALL Canadians, even their own.

#13 Guest_Derek L_*

Guest_Derek L_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2011 - 04:38 PM

The Tories can buy all the toys for the military it wants but if you don't have the man/woman power to run them they just rust from sitting there. Would they increase pay to equal their own because I think the military should have as much pay and pensions as the MP's do. If the Tories, don't increase pay but need the man/woman power, the only other way is mandatory 5 year run in the military for ALL Canadians, even their own.


The military doesn’t want conscription…….And there is already term contracts for service……..i.e., the military pays for your undergraduate degree, you owe them the same amount of time it took to complete it……it’s a fair deal………Also, wages and benefits, though not directly equal to all civilian fields, are completive and overall, our members (rightfully so) are amongst the best paid in the world………One major complaint amongst many current and former serving members, is that based on frequency and/or location of posting, it’s at times difficult for ones spouse to maintain a viable career…….As the old saying goes, when you marry a sailor/solider/airman you marry the Navy/Army/Air Force…….

#14 Smallc

Smallc

    as in just a little

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Waterhen, Manitoba
  • Interests:Politics and Cars

Posted 22 October 2011 - 04:53 PM

Then we're going to be in a bit of a jam with provinces like NB. The provincial debt is completely out of control and those of working age keep leaving the province to work out West.


That's why we have things like equalization. New Brunswick will also benefit in a big way from the National Ship Procurement Strategy.

Meanwhile, retirees remain behind and are going to need healthcare funding going forward.


Yeah, and I doubt we'll stop funding healthcare...but many people are behind because of their own choices.

The problem with healthcare is that the peopel who use it are not the ones paying into it.


We all pay for it.

If the federal government continues to ignore it and keeps committing us to contracts on toys for the military and new prisons, we're going to be F'ed. I'm a hell of a lot less concerned about being able to invade foreign countries than I am about what our healthcare systems will look like in another 30-40 years at this rate.


Maybe things are bad in NB, but in Manitoba, Manitoba Health has done nothing but get better since 1999.

I'm not even suggesting that the "stop funding the military". You're better than that.


We have a large military budget for us historically...but we aren't really spending massive amounts of money.

#15 Guest_Derek L_*

Guest_Derek L_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2011 - 04:58 PM

We have a large military budget for us historically...but we aren't really spending massive amounts of money.


As per GDP and what was deemed necessary by NATO, we’ve been under spending for decades…..A luxury we alone have, what with having three oceans and the world’s only superpower next door.



Reply to this topic