Time Flies

n

- August 15, 2011 at 18:07:20

I am in the Air movements world with a background in Strategic airlift.

Submit a comment

N

- August 11, 2011 at 11:42:47

Here are a few of the statements that seem to me to be speculative. "Apparently, the Canadians are regarded as the most pugnacious opponents they encounter – being more likely to initiate an engagement and to pursue it longer than the Americans, British or Dutch normally will." I would be most interested in reading more of this point of view from the Taliban opinion of our troops. Whether it is accurate or not, it is a point of personal interest. "We really needed more surveillance drones which would probably have reduced our IED casualties for a start." Possibly not probably, there is no way to know this would have reduced IED strikes. "We improvised armament on our helicopters and made much use of American attack helicopters. We could really use properly armed helicopters of our own." From all of the people I have spoken to, these "improvised helicopters" the author refers to are an extremely effective tool and have even been requested by other nations to assist in Top cover for other Operations, the Dillon gun mounted on the helicopter is an impressive tool and combined with the speed and manoeuvrability of the Griffon make this an impressive piece of equipment. Now, keep in mind, all of my information came from either the troops on the ground or from conversations with some aircrew members in the Chinook community. "aside from purchases like the C-17 transport..........everything was a minimal purchase." Although rather expensive, 4 C-17s is not a great number to work with, this I can speak on from personal experience in the Airlift world. Of course 4 are better than none but even with what we have there are limitations. "We could use some modern Artillery too, instead of just six tubes." The M777 is modern Artillery. The MacKenzie institute is a little suspect in both their motives and their credentials. For example the article at the following link (http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2000/2000_06_02_Military_Eagles.html), the author gets much of his information from a few Privates at a mess hall. The author is also terribly confused with regard to GPS and its use. He also states that Night Operations for the Canadian army are the exception and not the rule, this is false and misguided. As a former Recce Officer, I would expect him to have a little knowledge and display some common sense but alas he does neither. In the article attached he is also comparing a division to an entire military. I could spend the entire day poking holes in the claims made by this "Think Tank" but I have lost interest.

Submit a comment

• 

  Robby McRobb

  - August 11, 2011 at 16:21:52

  I fully understand now. You are talking about the MacKenzie Insitute PDF and their facts. I would suggest you contact them directly for any queries. What area of the air movements group did you work in....Ground support or a Loadie? Robby

N

- August 11, 2011 at 09:17:07

That article seems to have a lot of speculation wrt equipment and capabilities. I would like to have seen the author attach some references to the article.

Submit a comment

• 

  Robby McRobb

  - August 11, 2011 at 09:42:47

  Sorry, I do not understand your query, ref this blog? What equipment and capabilities are you looking for. ON that note Canada has indeed an extremely capable military. The present Government is replacing old equipment as fast as is possible. Given the monetary crisis which has ruled the world the past few years.