Canadian Armed Forces: 55,000 and holding steady

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2002-09-25 11:04pm

Ok, this is a bit off topic, but how come that most of the free world criticizes ever single thing that Bush does, but when we say something about them, they all get all defensive and stuff and think we are just plain wrong?

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-09-25 11:30pm

Because we are all self-righteous.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-09-25 11:32pm

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-09-25 11:36pm

http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/ ... 2-09.asp#1

Part of the reason Canada is sending fewer fighter pilots is because the Canadian Forces fighter force was downsized by 25 per cent through the 1990s. Balfe says there are fewer available aircraft because of the CF-18 modernization program, and in addition the air force is pretty well maxed out with other commitments, especially after Sept. 11, 2001.

...

This year the CF-18 marks its 20th anniversary and one 410 Sqdn. plane has been painted to resemble a hornet of the insect variety. Piloted by Capt. Doug Clements, the demo plane is participating in several air shows this year. The pilot instructor says he is living his dream, and the Hornet is a very exciting plane to fly.

"Some minor improvements have been made to the aircraft over the years, particularly in the air- to-surface role where we now have a precision-guided munitions capability," explains Col. Cleland. "Where we haven't been able to make advances is in the air-to-air portion. It is really not that much better than what it was when we got the planes in 1982."

However, the planes are being upgraded. The first modernized version, equipped with new radar, avionics and radios, is expected within a year. Cleland says the airframe will keep until the end of the CF-18's life, which will be in 2017. "How we have accomplished that is we have reduced our flying rate over the years. We are now flying half as many CF-18 hours as we used to--about 16,000 hours a year compared to 40,000 in the '80s.

......

Cleland adds it takes about two years and about $5 million to train a new fighter pilot. The air force is graduating 12 pilots a year, and the current number of fighter pilots is 68 compared with 120 ten years ago. Cleland would also like to reverse the trend that has seen reduced flying hours for pilots. "In the last 10 years we have gone from 240 hours to 210 to 190 (per year). We are now down to 178.... The fighter pilots come here to be the best they can be, and if I can't give them enough hours then they are not going to."

Cost and the fatigue life of the aircraft are two reasons why hours have been cut. The cost of operating a CF-18 for one hour is about $33,000 when you factor in fuel, maintenance and personnel.

*******************************

Fucking Canadian Idiots. How do they expect to keep pilot training up
while cutting the number of flight hours in HALF?

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-09-25 11:48pm

No $.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-09-25 11:49pm

MKSheppard wrote:http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/ ... 2-09.asp#1

Part of the reason Canada is sending fewer fighter pilots is because the Canadian Forces fighter force was downsized by 25 per cent through the 1990s. Balfe says there are fewer available aircraft because of the CF-18 modernization program, and in addition the air force is pretty well maxed out with other commitments, especially after Sept. 11, 2001.

...

This year the CF-18 marks its 20th anniversary and one 410 Sqdn. plane has been painted to resemble a hornet of the insect variety. Piloted by Capt. Doug Clements, the demo plane is participating in several air shows this year. The pilot instructor says he is living his dream, and the Hornet is a very exciting plane to fly.

"Some minor improvements have been made to the aircraft over the years, particularly in the air- to-surface role where we now have a precision-guided munitions capability," explains Col. Cleland. "Where we haven't been able to make advances is in the air-to-air portion. It is really not that much better than what it was when we got the planes in 1982."

However, the planes are being upgraded. The first modernized version, equipped with new radar, avionics and radios, is expected within a year. Cleland says the airframe will keep until the end of the CF-18's life, which will be in 2017. "How we have accomplished that is we have reduced our flying rate over the years. We are now flying half as many CF-18 hours as we used to--about 16,000 hours a year compared to 40,000 in the '80s.

......

Cleland adds it takes about two years and about $5 million to train a new fighter pilot. The air force is graduating 12 pilots a year, and the current number of fighter pilots is 68 compared with 120 ten years ago. Cleland would also like to reverse the trend that has seen reduced flying hours for pilots. "In the last 10 years we have gone from 240 hours to 210 to 190 (per year). We are now down to 178.... The fighter pilots come here to be the best they can be, and if I can't give them enough hours then they are not going to."

Cost and the fatigue life of the aircraft are two reasons why hours have been cut. The cost of operating a CF-18 for one hour is about $33,000 when you factor in fuel, maintenance and personnel.

*******************************

Fucking Canadian Idiots. How do they expect to keep pilot training up
while cutting the number of flight hours in HALF?

The Soviet Union found it could keep its fighter pilots quite competent with 90-100 hours flight time a year, split into about 180 sorties.

However this was for single role fighters. The pilots did not have to worry about all but the most basic air to ground missions or aerial refueling, or several other things, which keep Western pilots very busy. Plus there aircraft just started out simpler, though the pilot workloads where heavier.

Asdeed · Post by **Asdeed** » 2002-09-26 02:28am

Uhmm, we are all aware the 55,000 figure doesn't include the canadian army reserves right?

unigolyn · Post by **unigolyn** » 2002-09-26 04:10am

Queen of Denmark wrote:Hyvaa Paaiva Edi! (been some years since I've spoken Soumi sorry)

Im not saying Canadians are universally dreadful people, its their attitude twoards Ameican that is preplexing. My point is that Canadians tout their role in an international community, but when it comes to fulfilling it they fall short, and however idealistic we are, military is a part of fulfilling that role. Even tiny Denmark maintains a well equipped and prepared military...and whoever thinks of us Danes?...and who would want our small stretch of grass (besides, most definately, of course Danes)?

First of all, the US has little choice but to protect Canada, in fact the mere presence of the world's dominant military power right next to Canada makes it pretty damn unlikely for anyone to actually attack Canada in any conventional (no weapons of mass destruction) manner. So what's the point of a country of 30 million having an armed forces larger than 55 000? The fact is that no one does the job other than the US anyway, when it comes to actual brute force combat action. What did the British supply for Afghanistan that Canada didn't? To my knowledge, only a completely and utterly symbolic launching of a few missiles during the first week of aerial bombardment. Not that I'm diminishing what any possible British special forces or logistical involvement. My point is that when it comes to the US and its allies, only the US has the big guns. And I'm pretty sure the Pentagon and at least a majority of the government prefer it that way. Allies mostly do the menial (and inherently more casualty-prone) job of peacekeeping, as well as providing some specialized and small units, while the US drops the million-bucks-apiece bombs from the billion-dollar-apiece stealth bombers. There's hardly anyone who could afford that without adopting the social security standards of, say, Iraq. The US gains a lot by its military might, as no one really wants to get on the wrong foot with their superpowerful ally(ignoring the current stance of the respective governments Germany and France, which is clear-cut pre-election populism feeding from the rampant anti-american sentiment in the international media (and the masses buying into it)).

And let's look at military spending. Canada spends 1.3% of its GDP on the military. Germany spends 1.5%. Mexico only 1%. Who is more at risk from crisis areas in the world? Canada and Mexico have practically jack shit to worry about, due to their hemisphere being a relatively calm little place, plus the US's deterring presence as their neighbour. Germany (like me) resides in Europe, the civilized part of the world that still got bouts of ethnic cleansing and genocide in the last decade of the 20th century. Yet Germany only spends 0.2% percent more than Canada. And, despite Dubya's notion that his last name is Poutine, Jean Chretien supports the US, while Gerhard Schröder refuses any part of any war under any conditions, strangely unaware of the fact that they do have a military, that they are members of NATO, and that the US was the only thing that kept West Berlin from falling.

Bottom line, I don't see that the US has done Canada any large military services, simply because out of all allies, Canada needs the least amount of protection. If simply being next to the US is a crime, then please devise a way to move Canada elsewhere, preferrably somewhere a bit warmer.

PS. Also, as a european, and more importantly, as a person who doesn't suffer from any brain dysfunctions, I find it totally incomprehensible how such a large portion of americans (including presidential candidates, not that that particular job is a litmus test for general knowledge or anything) have no idea what the capital of their neighbouring country is. Even the most slack-jawed of slack-jawed yokels from the deepest forests of Estonia know all the capital cities of all our neighbouring countries (finland, russia, latvia, sweden), as I'm sure most other countries in the world do in regards to their respective neighbours. I met an american guy at a hostel in Cardiff last year, and there were about three canadians there. The subject of american geographical ignorance came up, and he was asked to name as many provinces as he could. His answers were New Brunswick and Ottawa (when i remembered 11 (i'm not even from the same continent!), and people jokingly mocked him, he got defensive and said we all wanted to be americans anyway, cause it's the greatest damn country on earth).

PPS. My fiancée, a canadian, objects very much to the US's usurpation of the term 'american'. She claims, and is right to do so, that canadians, mexicans, puerto ricans, etc. are all as much americans as people iowa. This would be comparable to people regarding a swede as a european for being in the european union, while someone from norway is merely a norwegian. go figure.

PPPPS. this turned out to be rather long, and i promise to try to be more to the point and shorter in any following posts.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-09-26 02:49pm

PPS. My fiancée, a canadian, objects very much to the US's usurpation of the term 'american'. She claims, and is right to do so, that canadians, mexicans, puerto ricans, etc. are all as much americans as people iowa. This would be comparable to people regarding a swede as a european for being in the european union, while someone from norway is merely a norwegian. go figure.

Why? It's just a name. Are you going to say that it is also acceptable to call everyone in the Western Hemisphere Canadian just because they are near Canada?

Doomriser · Post by **Doomriser** » 2002-09-26 04:37pm

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:
PPS. My fiancée, a canadian, objects very much to the US's usurpation of the term 'american'. She claims, and is right to do so, that canadians, mexicans, puerto ricans, etc. are all as much americans as people iowa. This would be comparable to people regarding a swede as a european for being in the european union, while someone from norway is merely a norwegian. go figure.
Why? It's just a name. Are you going to say that it is also acceptable to call everyone in the Western Hemisphere Canadian just because they are near Canada?

Oh, gee, I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe he means that Canadians are to be called Americans because Canada is part of NORTH AMERICA. Why would we call everyone in the Western Hemisphere Canadian? Is the U.S. part of Canada? Is Mexico? Is Greenland?

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-09-26 08:32pm

Oh, gee, I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe he means that Canadians are to be called Americans because Canada is part of NORTH AMERICA .

This makes no sense. We call ourselves Americans because we actually call our nation America. Not because of the continent that is named North America. There are no other nations that have the name America in it. So why should we call all the other nations Americans? It would just confuse everything. What would we call people from the United States of America? "Americans from the United States of America," instead of simply, "Americans"? And would the rest of the world call people from Mexico, Brazil, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Greenland, or Canada Americans from Mexico, Brazil, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Greenland or Canada? This is a strange concept.

Why would we call everyone in the Western Hemisphere Canadian? Is the U.S. part of Canada? Is Mexico? Is Greenland?

That is the point I made before. You just restated it.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-09-26 09:55pm

unigolyn wrote: PPS. My fiancée, a canadian, objects very much to the US's usurpation of the term 'american'. She claims, and is right to do so, that canadians, mexicans, puerto ricans, etc. are all as much americans as people iowa. This would be comparable to people regarding a swede as a european for being in the european union, while someone from norway is merely a norwegian. go figure.

Your fiancée's complaint is something I heard a lot (jokingly) in Spanish class. Of course she is correct but what else are you going to call people from the U.S. (that we'll answer to

)? I've been called a Yankee or Yank before but I don't particularly care for it because a "Yankee" to me is either a baseball team or someone from the Northeastern U.S.. Certainly a lot of the southern U.S. would take it much more personally if you were to call them Yankee. Truthfully, being called a Yank by someone from another country doesn't really bother me. I am more annoyed by someone from the U.S. calling me a Yankee, even if my ancestors did fight for the Union in the Civil War.

unigolyn · Post by **unigolyn** » 2002-09-26 10:32pm

IRG CommandoJoe wrote: This makes no sense. We call ourselves Americans because we actually call our nation America. Not because of the continent that is named North America. There are no other nations that have the name America in it.

Well, duh. That's the point. What if Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg decided to join together, and called this new country The United States of Europe, and then started to colloquially call it Europe, and each other Europeans? Anyway, no one's seriously saying that you should call yourself something else, just that it's a bit odd that there are Europeans, Asians and Africans, but Americans refers to the citizens of one country, the name of which isn't America, but the United States of America.

And anyway, it was a joke.

unigolyn · Post by **unigolyn** » 2002-09-26 10:36pm

Tsyroc wrote: Your fiancée's complaint is something I heard a lot (jokingly) in Spanish class. Of course she is correct but what else are you going to call people from the U.S. (that we'll answer to )? I've been called a Yankee or Yank before but I don't particularly care for it because a "Yankee" to me is either a baseball team or someone from the Northeastern U.S.. Certainly a lot of the southern U.S. would take it much more personally if you were to call them Yankee. Truthfully, being called a Yank by someone from another country doesn't really bother me. I am more annoyed by someone from the U.S. calling me a Yankee, even if my ancestors did fight for the Union in the Civil War.

Yep, and I hardly ever use the term, and we both usually say American or sometimes 'from the states'. If i really objected to the term 'American' for some reason, I'd probably call people by their respective states. Iowan, Arkansan, New Yorker... Rhode Islandite?

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-09-26 10:49pm

PPS. My fiancée, a canadian, objects very much to the US's usurpation of the term 'american'. She claims, and is right to do so, that canadians, mexicans, puerto ricans, etc. are all as much americans as people iowa. This would be comparable to people regarding a swede as a european for being in the european union, while someone from norway is merely a norwegian. go figure.

Does that sound like a joke to you? Next time, make it seem like one.

unigolyn · Post by **unigolyn** » 2002-09-26 11:26pm

IRG CommandoJoe wrote: Does that sound like a joke to you? Next time, make it seem like one.

does it sound like a serious issue one would have? the whole thing is ridiculous, no one's going to demand to have the name 'american' declared un-PC or whatnot. okay, i take back my calling it a 'joke'. it was intended as a humorous anecdote, no more serious than the football/soccer name debate, or the one about canoes and american beer. lighten up.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-09-26 11:36pm

Me lighten up? I was debating about it because I thought it was ridiculous the very same way you just described it as.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-09-26 11:37pm

Not to mention you are going to marry a woman that takes it seriously.

unigolyn · Post by **unigolyn** » 2002-09-26 11:44pm

She does NOT take it seriously. It's not a serious issue. She objects to the term 'american' just as much as I object to American football being called football. I do object to it very much, but that doesn't mean i think it's a serious matter.

As to the debate... What's to debate? The continent is called America. So's a country in it. Only the dwellers of that country are called americans. Not somewhat strange? If the continent was called Columbia, and only people who lived in the country Columbia were called Columbians, it'd be just as weird.

And it's a ridiculous subject because no one's going to change the status quo, it doesn't make subject itself automatically ridiculous, i happen to think it's a valid point.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2002-09-27 09:28am

". . .and the current number of fighter pilots is 68 . . ."

This figure probably doesn't probably include the reserve pilots, I hope.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-09-27 12:04pm

unigolyn wrote: Yep, and I hardly ever use the term, and we both usually say American or sometimes 'from the states'. If i really objected to the term 'American' for some reason, I'd probably call people by their respective states. Iowan, Arkansan, New Yorker... Rhode Islandite?

Well in italian we have both american and an other term which means exactly US citizen.But in effects it is seldom used.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-09-27 05:30pm

If you object to something, don't you take it seriously? If you object to anything, don't you take it seriously? I can't think of anything that someone objects to but also takes lightly. Because they are serious about it is the reason why they object to it in the first place. If I didn't really care about something, I wouldn't object to it. So if you're blaming me for falsely saying you and your fiance take it seriously, keep in mind it was your poor choice of words that led me to believe so.

Queen of Denmark · Post by **Queen of Denmark** » 2002-10-02 02:31am

Mr Wong.: Im more interested in hearing others opinions rather than point/counter point till we agree that we dont agree, because this is the internet and I guess being combative and argmentative seems the be the point of the whole damn thing. And Im not a "She"

This was not meant as a trollish (I assume that means 'stirring up the dirt' or something)...it was meant as an off-topic post. Of course as I suspected this turned into and "Us and Them" topic...who's more ignorant, who's in the position to be fashionably right. This has all boiled down to sterotypes...ignorant Americans, Arrogant Europeans, Victimised Canadians. Certain societies tend to produce certain norms, true, but Americans are not ignorant they are Provincial, which seems fair enough given their geography. A nation of ignorant, stupid and lazy people do not build a superpower, and while my brother is enjoying his 6 1/2 weeks of vacation in Denmark a year, I am working, as we do not get 6 1/2 weeks of vacation here. Get the point?
As for this silly thing about somone being irrate that Americans have commandeered the "Term" Americans for themselves. If a Canadian is upset about this, perhaps next time they are in Europe they can flog the point that they are "definately not American...but Americans!".

Queen of Denmark · Post by **Queen of Denmark** » 2002-10-02 02:48am

Unigolyn: This "I met an American in Cardiff who..." Ja ja ja. We've all met an American or a Canadian or a Swede etc. who is a complete lout. People are people and judging a persons intellect on their knowledge of Canadian geography is remarkably ridiculous. Just the fact that you met an American, in hostel, obviously travelling for the purpose of broadening himself, not to mention the effort and money he spent to do so puts your story of "The American I met in Cardiff..." in leauge with every other "I met a so or so in wherever who was so stupid that...". These stories and attempts to belittle an entire people based on one encouter are so common they disappear.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-10-02 02:54am

Queen of Denmark wrote:Mr Wong.: Im more interested in hearing others opinions rather than point/counter point till we agree that we dont agree, because this is the internet and I guess being combative and argmentative seems the be the point of the whole damn thing. And Im not a "She" This was not meant as a trollish (I assume that means 'stirring up the dirt' or something)...it was meant as an off-topic post. Of course as I suspected this turned into and "Us and Them" topic...who's more ignorant, who's in the position to be fashionably right. This has all boiled down to sterotypes...ignorant Americans, Arrogant Europeans, Victimised Canadians. Certain societies tend to produce certain norms, true, but Americans are not ignorant they are Provincial, which seems fair enough given their geography. A nation of ignorant, stupid and lazy people do not build a superpower, and while my brother is enjoying his 6 1/2 weeks of vacation in Denmark a year, I am working, as we do not get 6 1/2 weeks of vacation here. Get the point?
snip

Any nations millitary spending is a political topic and you cannot avoid politics in any discussion of this nature. Every person has a political opinion and this colours this type of topic, you cannot avoid it particuly on web sites like this where opinions are very strongly held.