• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CF UAV, Chopper Ann't 7 Aug 08

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,461
Points
1,260
Media advisory
The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, will make a joint announcement regarding the acquisition of equipment for the Canadian Forces.

WHERE:
10 Hangar
438 Squadron (Saint-Hubert Airport)
10 Rue Leckie
Saint-Hubert, Quebec

WHEN: Thursday, August 7, 2008

TIME: 10:00 AM (EDT)



Canadian Press coverage
The Tory government is set to announce the lease of helicopters and unmanned survelliance planes for the Canadian military in Afghanistan.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Public Works Minister Christian Paradis will be in the Montreal area to outline the lease of up to eight Soviet-style Mi-8 helicopters to transport battlefield supplies in Kandahar.

It is an interim measure until the Defence Department completes the $375 million purchase of six American-made CH-47-D Chinook helicopters, which will be able to transport both troops and equipment...

More on links
 
"lease of up to eight Soviet-style Mi-8 helicopters"

and the owners wil throw in 14 rolls of gun tape to keep them going....lets just buy six more Chinooks for a total of 12.

The lease part just kills me. Helo's, tanks, shell trackers.
 
HFXCrow said:
and the owners wil throw in 14 rolls of gun tape to keep them going....lets just buy six more Chinooks for a total of 12.

Just buying 6 more chinooks isn't like going to Sports Check and deciding to buy 6 more golf clubs because you're already buying some. The Russian lease is to hold us over til we get our own assets.
 
Just for clarification purposes...

The 6 Chinook-D models we are purchasing for $345 million....is that part of, or in addition to, the 16 that were going to be purchased as part of the project??
 
guess you have never have had the pleasure of flying in a "Hip"
 
HFXCrow said:
guess you have never have had the pleasure of flying in a "Hip"

Nope, but I have had the pleasure of being in convoys in Afghanistan. Convoys are convoys, and flying is flying.
 
Don't forget the Polish contingent in Kandahar has also offered to fly us where we want to go in their "Hips".

Our AF guys and gals have plenty of experience gun taping various sorts of aircraft into flying shape, this is just one more kick at the cat before we get the Chinooks. Remember naysayers:
"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves..."
 
been on both on Hips and Convoys in the "ghan" and some other wonderful places

but and when you see the "Gun tape", GW is right "a prayer is a prayer!

my point is Canada's leasing policy on gear we need not band-aids

not here to compare experiences just make my point about procurement

 
The UAV deal is already well know so why a need for this "announcement" ?
 
There are actually two Chinook projects on the go:

1.  The first - which is to be delivered later if it comes through - is the acquisition of the CH - 47F.  The F model is the latest and greatest and the US Army only got their first two this year.  There is a thread elsewhere about the air force brass wanting to wait for the F model and all the acquisition issues involved in it.

2.  The second project - which was initiated later but is to be delivered (hopefully) earlier - is the acquisition of the CH-47D model.  The D model is current model is use in A-stan by the US Army and the air force would receive six used US Army ones in-situ in A-stan.

These two separate but supplemental projects are the reason why so many people are confused when the talk about the Chinook project.
 
HFXCrow said:
been on both on Hips and Convoys in the "ghan" and some other wonderful places

but and when you see the "Gun tape", GW is right "a prayer is a prayer!

my point is Canada's leasing policy on gear we need not band-aids

not here to compare experiences just make my point about procurement

You brought up flying in a hip. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match, but my point was:

As far as procurement, if the government had decided to buy more chinooks instead of leasing hips, it still wouldn't have gotten us a helo capacity in theater any quicker.

And for the ubiquitous sarcasm here
CDN Aviator said:
::)

yeah...........NOT

You know very well that I was making a comparison between convoying somewhere on ground, and flying somewhere. I'm not daft enough to expect that helos will replace convoys, but there's a lot of times when flying in will be a benefit over going over-land.
 
The Delta Chinooks are only an interim acquisition and will eventually be disposed of somehow.

Mark
Ottawa
 
The Delta Chinooks are only an interim acquisition and will eventually be disposed of somehow.

Exactly.  And as for the Polish choppers, I've been told that offer was really more symbolic than anything: extra hours the Poles weren't using on helos that aren't even flying out of KAF.  A nice gesture, and welcome, but not really too useful.

The lease is a stop-gap.  And remember, from the gov't standpoint, the political driver on all the rotary-wing moves and announcements is the Manley report recommendation.  What they really want to do is be able to point to the helicopter capabilities in theatre as of February 2009 and say "we've complied with the Manley recommendation."
 
Is there still not the threat of SA missiles?

One of the articles I posted (last month I think) was one of the Taliban leaders being caught.....with a SA missile in the car, among other goodies..
 
GAP said:
Is there still not the threat of SA missiles?

One of the articles I posted (last month I think) was one of the Taliban leaders being caught.....with a SA missile in the car, among other goodies..

From what little I've read, there are MANPADS about in Taliban country, but no experts I've contacted seem to want to share any estimated figure out loud.
 
I've never voted Conservative, but man I would hope that at least they could throw some damn money into the military. How about a Canadian carrier .....any hopes for us EVER having one? How about top of the line, state of the art equipement for our troops? I understand the Russian helo's are stop-gap, but it always seems that we use someone else's old gear. And does anyone else see the irony of flying Soviet choppers in Afghanistan? History repeating itself? 
 
pfl said:
I've never voted Conservative, but man I would hope that at least they could throw some damn money into the military. How about a Canadian carrier .....any hopes for us EVER having one? How about top of the line, state of the art equipement for our troops? I understand the Russian helo's are stop-gap, but it always seems that we use someone else's old gear. And does anyone else see the irony of flying Soviet choppers in Afghanistan? History repeating itself? 

Plenty of discussion about aircraft carriers in the Navy forum already.

Milnet.ca Staff
 
Back
Top