- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
From the CP: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/08/17/6482501-cp.html
Quote: "We've asked our allies to provide any of the escort requirements for our Chinooks and or possibly the charters in theatre," [LCol] Grabstas said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press.
"So that capability that the Griffon might fulfill should be addressed by NATO."
The federal cabinet, which has the ultimate authority when it comes to agreements and deployments, has apparently yet to sign off on the proposal.
The details of the arrangement are still being worked out with NATO air planners, said Grabstas, who directs support and specialist plans for the military's strategic joint staff.
Not deploying armed CH-146s overseas means they would available to protect the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games."
Quote (2): ""To me it's fundamental that if we're going to have half the capability, which is the Chinook, then we should get the other half of the capability, which is an attack helicopter." - Senator Colin Kenny
-----
In one sense this is logical - the Americans, British and Dutch all operate Apaches in RC South (the US Marines also brought their Cobras) and have learned to pair their gunships with transports. On the other hand it makes no sense at all: the whole point of the Chinook purchase was to provide an organic tactical aviation capability so we didn't have to depend on our allies everytime and run our own ops. If everytime we want to fly we have to ask the US/UK/Dutch to send over a pair of Apaches how independent can we be? Does this mean we scrub Canadian missions when the Apache owners say they are not available? I hope somebody knows what they are doing.
Quote: "We've asked our allies to provide any of the escort requirements for our Chinooks and or possibly the charters in theatre," [LCol] Grabstas said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press.
"So that capability that the Griffon might fulfill should be addressed by NATO."
The federal cabinet, which has the ultimate authority when it comes to agreements and deployments, has apparently yet to sign off on the proposal.
The details of the arrangement are still being worked out with NATO air planners, said Grabstas, who directs support and specialist plans for the military's strategic joint staff.
Not deploying armed CH-146s overseas means they would available to protect the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games."
Quote (2): ""To me it's fundamental that if we're going to have half the capability, which is the Chinook, then we should get the other half of the capability, which is an attack helicopter." - Senator Colin Kenny
-----
In one sense this is logical - the Americans, British and Dutch all operate Apaches in RC South (the US Marines also brought their Cobras) and have learned to pair their gunships with transports. On the other hand it makes no sense at all: the whole point of the Chinook purchase was to provide an organic tactical aviation capability so we didn't have to depend on our allies everytime and run our own ops. If everytime we want to fly we have to ask the US/UK/Dutch to send over a pair of Apaches how independent can we be? Does this mean we scrub Canadian missions when the Apache owners say they are not available? I hope somebody knows what they are doing.
