aussie

Sounds very convincing i don't know what Tronic is talking about.
Also officer of enginneers why are you alloweing talk about canada in the Asian issues part of the forum???

__________________
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein

Officer of Engineers

Roughly the same. We have a somewhat more modern and larger army. Oz, somewhat more modern and a little bit larger air force. Navy is about the same.

He made a comment about Canada against Iran.

Incidently, the Japanese have a more modern air force and navy than the Chinese.

__________________
Chimo

Tronic

Listen man... Do you want me to list the weapons that Canada uses and when they were acquired??? In all those scenarios you mentioned Canada took part in, well there were ALWAYS other allies there which had a far more troops on the ground then Canada. Even in Yugoslavia, most of the action was seen by the Brits and Americans. And the air support you got was also mostly American. Another point I want to make is that back then the Canadian Military was able to operate their F18's more freely then now as the F18's were newer then. Since then, no upgrades or no new fighter aircraft have been bought. The Canadian Military is just not an independent fighting force. In Afghanistan, i'm pretty sure you guys couldn't deploy your F18's because of lack of maintanence.

Simple Questions that when you find the answers (try searching google) you will realize what I mean Canadian Forces are not that capable.

1.) How old are your Seaking helicopters? After how long can they fly again after each sortie?

2.) How old are the Canadian Subs that were purchased from England, pre-used? And how much did Canada buy them for?

3.) What is the replacement being sought for most of the Tanks in the Canadian Forces?

4.) How many combat aircraft were used in Afghanistan?

If you find the answers to these questions, you'll know exactly what i'm talking about.

Note, i'm talking about the past, I'm talking about the current status of the Canadian Forces.

I agree with you that Canada has a VERY Proud army but I don't know about "Best" army.

Just think about the Scenario, Canada vs. Iran. 1 on 1. You obviously can clearly see that Iran wins hands down.

********************************
"Incidently, the Japanese have a more modern air force and navy than the Chinese."

And the Japanese also have a MUCH more modern Navy and Airforce then Canada.

Tronic

I don't know what the hell your talking about. Canada NEVER offered help in Iraq, infact they were TOTALLY against the Iraq war. Jean Chretian opposed the war America was fighting in Iraq. Even the new government with Paul Martin doesn't approve.

*******************************
P.S. HAHA, have you seen the movie "Canadian Bacon"??? America gets bored cuz cold war has ended so they invade Canada just for fun. Lol, they send one SEAL team (about 7 members) to take over Canada. The Americans only suffer 1 casualty when one of the SEAL members falls and breaks his toe, lol.

The only defense the Canadians have is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, lol. Just a movie though...

Officer of Engineers

We are ALWAYS within the top FOUR, given that there are at least 10 other armies in NATO who are far larger than ours. That means that we have consistently punched FAR beyond our weight. We've DONE far more than our share. And guess what, we're asked to do jobs ... and we're not allowed to say no.

Wrong, sonny. The two most active force in Yugoslavia were the Canadians and the British ... In that order! The Americans were not even in UNPROFOR. The top 3 UNPROFOR force provider were the British, Canadian, and France.

UNPROFOR had no air arm.

What point are you trying to make? Before the end of the Cold War, Canadian CF-104s were tasked to drop nukes on Russian columns. And this is WAY before the CF-18s.

Wrong on that count. 36 fighters have gone through the USN F-18 upgrade program. The entire program is slated to end 2007.

We're not? I didn't see anyone else beside me when I was returning fire.

We did not deploy the CF-18s because the Americans asked for our ground troops, more specifically, we received a direct request from the American 187th Regiment (Rakashans), 101st Airborne Division (Air Assualt) for the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group. Aside from that, our CF-18s are right now patrolling NORTH AMERICAN airspace, the first time in such frequency since the end of the Cold War. Maybe you didn't know this. From 11 Sept on, Canadian warplanes were patrolling American airspace as well as Canadian.

At which time, I will directly challenge your lack of knowledge on ALL these matters.

After the last refit (the only measure that counts), 15 years old. And on average, 27 hours maintenance for every 1 hour flight which does not paint an accurage picture whatsoever. The Sea Kings do not fly 1 hour and then stop for 27. They fly an entire mission straight and then is grounded for a week for repairs. And by mission, I mean 78 hours.

Again, refit is the only measure that counts. Therefore, brand new. The CF paid $820mil Cdn to the Royal Navy for them.

There are no replacement for the Leo C2s. That role is being eliminated from our TOE. For the purposes envisioned, of which I am sure you know ZERO about, we've bought 66 LAV-105s (tank destroyers) for a new paradyme which you know zero about. Incidently, we're not getting rid of the Leo C2s. At least one squadron is to retain the Leo C2s until 2015.

You mean fighters? Zero. You mean Hercs? 3.

I do. You don't.

So am I. You know nothing about our current status.

You obviously know very little about miltiary R&D. The CF is a bleeding edge force, in every sense of the word, we have more flying hours in our fighters than any other NATO force, our tanks needed to be upgraded from Leo C1 to Leo C2 because our tankers overdrove the things and stretched them beyond belief. Fatique has set in that you can poke holes in the armour with a pencil.

Our COYOTE and LAV-III are state-of-the-art and in demand by NATO. We're asked to do more recee missions than any other force in NATO, including the Americans.

We're designing ourselves to be the premiere recee-by-force military on earth. On that, we have no equal, not even the Americans.

I can see two things.

1) I have absolute confidence that my Battle Group will kill any Iranian Brigade anytime anywhere.

2) We will be fighting in Iran and not Canada.


Now, my challenge.

1) Mission wise, how effective are the Sea Kings?
2) What's on par with the VICTORIA/UPHOLDER class?
3) What role do we have envisioned for the LAV-105s?
4) Why didn't the Russians/Soviets EVER penetrated our airspace?


No, they don't.

Officer of Engineers

Wrong on those facts. Then Minister of National Defence John MacCullun was sent to CENTCOM on behalf of Jean Chretien asking why the Canadians were left out of certain planning aspects of the Iraq War. The MND promised full co-operation and the Canadians were let back in.

In actual fact, when the announcement of the ISAF deployment came, the Chief of Land Staff, Lieutenant-General Mike Jefferies got 15 minutes warning and Major-General Cameron Ross, who is responsible for advising the government on the feasibility of any mission, was left out in the cold. MGen Ross resigned in protest.

Even then, we were involved in the Iraq War, being the 4th largest force contributor to that war. From my old boss

The movie got it wrong. The Canadiens got no defence ... and that's why they haven't won a Stanley Cup in over 10 years.

Tronic

A LITTLE INSIGHT INTO CANADA'S BRAND "NEW" SUBMARINES BOUGHT AT A QUARTER OF THE ORIGINAL PRICE

Newly bought sub leaks on trial run

Globe and Mail Update

Wednesday, July 03, 2002

Canadian sailors got a lesson in the buyer-beware principle when one of their newly purchased British submarines sprang a leak during a training run.

HMS Ursula limped back to port on the west coast of Scotland yesterday, with a crew of about 50 Canadians on board, after water flowed into the submarine through a small tube-like device used to send signal markers to the surface when the vessel is submerged.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rce_login=true

Used submarines unfit for service Royal Navy hand-me-downs can't leave port pending analysis

With a report from Canadian Press

Wednesday, May 1, 2002

ada's two operating submarines aren't fit to go to sea.

Investigators are scanning a small dent in the hull of the submarine HMCS Victoria and looking for cracks in the exhaust valves of the vessel and those of its sister submarine HMCS Windsor.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rce_login=true

ALL THE ABOVE ARTICLES WERE TAKEN STRAIGHT FROM A CANADIAN NEWS SOURCE, Globe and Mail (A Source That Canadians Trust, lol.

"Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s (1957-1963) tenure conjures up security/military issues related to NORAD, nuclear weapons delivery, and the Avro Arrow fighter jet. He was suspicious of the USA, and of President Kennedy in particular. During the Cuban missile crisis, he delayed putting the military on alert, infuriating the Americans in the process. Diefenbaker failed to understand Canada’s national interests; he made the Canadian Forces political and used defence policy to "smack" the US. Diefenbaker killed the military.

Lester Pearson’s only fault was that, as foreign minister to 1957, he did his job too well. His understanding of international affairs and responsible leadership led to the successful interposition of Canadian troops and the defusing of the Suez Crisis in 1956. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, making him the model statesman and envy of politicians. He established the Pearsonian peacekeeping myth that continues, today to hurt the military (peaceful intervention leads to the faulty deduction that there is no need to acquire arms for the military). Succeeding Liberal leaders have tried to emulate Pearson by sending Canadian Forces on a myriad of "peacekeeping" missions. The peacekeeping myth, along with the reluctance to arm Canada’s military, has dealt the military a mortal blow. Mike Pearson killed the military.

Defence Minister Paul Hellyer also ranks as one of the killers of the Canadian military. The idea of unification was not a bad one. The military should work together. However, Hellyer’s tactics were terrible: changing uniform and rank structures was not necessary to effect unification. Hellyer went too far and killed the Canadian military.

Pierre Trudeau viewed soldiers as unintelligent thugs. Likewise, his perception of the major powers was distorted: he saw the USSR and US as moral equivalents. His belief that Canada could find a new way in foreign and defence policy led to European-based Canadian military reductions in NATO. Trudeau killed the Canadian Military.

Brian Mulroney came to power with the promise to restore the Canadian Forces after the Liberal government’s long neglect. Every promise was broken; expectations raised by the 1987 White Paper were dashed. Mulroney killed the Canadian Forces.

Jean Chrétien finished off the Canadian Forces. He did not understand Canada’s national interests nor did his government understand the US response to 9/11. With no coordinated purpose or knowledge of interests, he sent Canadian troops all over the globe during his tenure, weakened the military, and failed to tell the Canadian people that he had depleted their force of last resort. Jean Chrétien killed the military.

But it is the Canadian people who really killed their military. We elected our national leaders; we the people are responsible. We believe that defence spending is unnecessary. Canadians killed their military.

In concluding, Dr. Granatstein offered counsel. We need to stop anti-Americanism and be realistic. We cannot opt out of North American defence; otherwise we lose our sovereignty. We need to defend ourselves from too much help from the Americans. The Americans in defence of their their homeland will need to defend the approaches to their nation, even if those approaches go through Canada.

A military force cannot be conjured up overnight. It took decades to render the military bankrupt; it will take a long time to restore it. Who can rebuild the Canadian Forces? We can!"
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_GMs/AGM67/granatstein.htm

lol, thats taken right off the Canadian Conference of Defense Assosiactions (CDA)

So there, your own people admit The Canadian Military is "dead" so please this argument is worthless.

Officer of Engineers

As for the Brigade

(NATIONAL POST) - Saturday » January 11 » 2003

'Forces' last chance to show country what they can do'
Planners offer 3,000 troops to fight alongside U.K., U.S.

Chris Wattie
National Post


Friday, January 10, 2003

Canadian Forces planners are "putting everything on the table" for a contribution to any war in Iraq, military sources say, including a brigade group of up to 3,000 mechanized infantry, armour and artillery troops that would fight alongside U.S. and British soldiers.

One source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the navy, air force and army are pushing to make the maximum effort possible despite well-publicized shortages of equipment, funding and personnel.

"Everything they could possibly send to Iraq, they will ... if the government gives the go-ahead," said the source.

But some observers say the military's contingency plans to send everything from CF-18 fighters to a large formation of ground troops to Iraq are being stymied by the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of Foreign Affairs, which object to Canadians becoming involved in combat.

"The government is not terribly happy with the idea of fighting a war," said Colonel Alain Pellerin, a retired army officer and executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations. "That goes against their idea of what our image should be -- that we're peacekeepers; we don't fight wars.

"The PMO and [Privy Council Office] have been particularly hard line about that."

However Col. Pellerin said those objections may not stand up to pressure from Washington.

"The bottom line is the Americans expect something from Canada," he said. "And they would like to have them contribute to land operations."

The Canadian Forces has, for the past few months, been making extensive plans in anticipation of a possible war in Iraq, and one senior defence planner said the army has indicated it could send an entire brigade group to the conflict.

"The feeling among the army is that this is their last chance to show the country what they can do."

A brigade group is about 3,000 soldiers, built around an armoured battalion and one or more mechanized infantry battalions. The source said the infantry would be drawn from the 2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, in Gagetown, N.B.

The plan would draw the armour - including squadrons of Coyote armoured reconnaissance vehicles and C-2 Leopard tanks - from the Royal Canadian Dragoons, based in Petawawa, Ont.

The 3rd Battalion of the RCR, the regiment's light infantry battalion, is another possibility for deployment with the brigade group. That battalion is the army's designated "rapid reaction unit."

Another military source said the Canadian Forces' joint operations group, the central co-ordination unit for major operations, has already sent a small reconnaissance group to the Gulf to check out possible sites for a Canadian headquarters in the region.

The source said one plan under consideration would see a Canadian battalion of about 1,000 soldiers joining allied forces arrayed against Iraq as a "first wave," along with a headquarters for the full brigade group. Other battalions and smaller units such as engineers, artillery and support elements could be added as they arrive.

"That's the template they used in Kosovo and as far back as Korea," the source said. "One battalion became the nucleus of the Commonwealth Brigade."

An air force officer, who also asked not to be named, indicated that a squadron of CF-18s has been offered for any fight in Iraq. Although the jets are in the process of a badly needed upgrade to their airborne electronics, the source said the military hopes a small number will be ready in time to allow them to operate with British and U.S. forces.

The air force has also been replenishing its supply of "smart" bombs, almost all of which were used during the bombing campaign over Kosovo.

Heather Brunner, a spokeswoman for the Department of National Defence, said Canadian military planners are already involved in discussions with the Americans.

"There is a small military liaison team engaged in discussions with the U.S. military authorities right now," she said. "[They're] looking at determining the needs and appropriate contributions should the use of force become necessary."

However, Ms. Brunner said all the plans being laid are still hypothetical. "It's not appropriate to speculate at this time what our specific contribution might be."

John McCallum, the Defence Minister, has said that at minimum, two navy frigates, transport planes and two surveillance aircraft now patrolling the Persian Gulf region in the war on terrorism could be transferred to operations against Iraq.

The commandos of JTF-2, who were withdrawn from Afghanistan late last year for a rest, could also be easily and quickly transferred to an allied force in Iraq.

Col. Pellerin said the proposal to send a large body of Canadian ground troops to Iraq is possible, but said time is not on the defence planners' side.

"They would have to commit themselves now or very soon," he said. "They would have to make an announcement like the Brits or the French did this week that they feel it's prudent to begin real preparations."

cwattie@nationalpost.com

© Copyright 2003 National Post

Officer of Engineers

And what is your point in this? I know the CDA. I'm a member. You have absolutely no understanding of the article. We have dropped a long way. No question. But we are far from dead ... and far from being ineffective.

I'm a bellycrawler, not a submariner ... but I take strong confidence in that the people who worked on these subs are more than willing to go back and do their jobs. It's when they're not willing, then we have problems.

Again, you know crap!

Tronic

Please read my above thread^^^

^^^For the above thread^^^ don't forget HMCS Chicoutimi

Officer of Engineers

I did and I will state it again. You don't understand the article.

Officer of Engineers

I don't and I never will forget my Brothers-In-Arms. You, however, have absolutely no concept of a shake-down. We lost a man. No question. The Chinese lost a crew. The Russians lost a sub.

I will tell you something ... and your limited mind will not understand. You're not considered a sub power until you lost a sub and crew ... and continue to lose them, in however, small increments.

Tronic

America doesn't loose subs like that, does that mean they are not a sub power???
And China and Russia have low maintanence on their subs, thats why they have accidents but I guess the Canadians have maintanence problems as well cuz i can recall a helicopter crashing on board the ship before it could take off, lol.

Officer of Engineers

What the hell do you mean the US don't lose subs like that? Do a google before you show your ignorance. And we did not lose a sub. We lost a man.

And you're a freaking idiot. A chopper crashing onto its ship. NAME ME ONE HELO BORNED NAVY that hasn't have this happenned to?

Give up, Kid, you have not answer any of my challenges and I've done more than answer yours. You know crap little and don't pretend otherwise.

Tronic

Try to find Canada in the military spending list ranked from highest to lowest (needs a little updating)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/spending.htm

CORRECTION: In front of some countries like Canada, India, Sweden, Korea, etc it says they spend in "millions". Thats a mistake, its actually in "billions"