Canadian Military may hire private firms to conduct patrols.

Lonestar · October 2, 2003, 22:42

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2003...da196.raw.html

Quote:

Navy may hire private firms to do patrols

By The Canadian Press

Ottawa - Canada's navy is looking at hiring private companies to conduct air sovereignty patrols along the east and west coasts due to budget cuts and equipment shortages, the Ottawa Citizen reported Saturday.

The air force usually provides the navy with a number of Aurora surveillance planes to conduct such missions, but it has had to cut back on the number of flying hours because of a lack of money and aircraft.

"Notwithstanding excellent working relations with the Air Force, maritime air support is dwindling," the navy concluded in its Maritime Command Impact Assessment for 2003, which was obtained by the Citizen.

A variety of options are being looked at, including having the navy hire a private firm to provide planes for coastal patrols. Such missions are used to keep tabs on ships in Canada's waters as well as environmental problems offshore.

"There's no doubt the reduction in the flying hours has caused us some challenge with producing our recognized maritime picture and we have to explore all options," said navy Capt. Dave Gardam, director of maritime policy, operations and readiness.

On the east coast, the navy has an arrangement with the Department of Fisheries to obtain surveillance information from aircraft conducting fisheries patrols.

Those planes are provided by private firms on contract to the Fisheries department. One of the options being looked at by the navy includes expanding that arrangement.

In the past decade, the navy has seen a 54-per-cent reduction in the number of Aurora flying hours allocated to support its efforts.

This year, the air force is providing 700 hours of Aurora flying time for the navy on each coast. It can increase those hours if there is an emergency or major incident.

Air force officials say part of the problem is that the Aurora fleet is being modernized and to do that as many as five of the planes are withdrawn from the flight line for the upgrade.

In addition, regular maintenance also takes some of the other planes out of service.

In total, the air force operates 18 Auroras and three other similar patrol planes.

Money problems have also limited the amount of spare parts available for the Auroras. As well, flying hours for all of the air force's planes have been reduced for budget reasons.

Contributing Auroras to the war on terror also limited the number of flying hours available for other duties but those planes have since returned from that overseas mission.

Gardam said the navy is also looking at boosting the amount of information it gathers about activities along the country's coasts through a variety of other methods.

Those include the use of a new high-frequency surface wave radar, developed by defence scientists in Ottawa, which can monitor ship movement several hundred kilometres out to sea.

Geez Apoly-Canucks, this is the fourth or fifth "bad thing" I've seen with regards to your military in the past month (regarding budget constraints). Was the disintigrating Sea King fleet not enough?

Asher · October 2, 2003, 22:49

The Liberals are killing the military.

Tuberski · October 2, 2003, 22:52

They should hire USA Inc.

ACK!

Lonestar · October 2, 2003, 22:54

A Canadien poster from the bbs I got the article said this:

Quote:

I think that few nations, however, have been as spendthrift toward their military as ours. We can spend $1.2 billion on a fvcking useless national gun owner database (which was originally budgeted for $2 million!) but we can't afford helicopters, ammo, or uniforms.

And on the Sea Kings:

Quote:

They only need 3 hours of maintenance for every hour (-Janes says 4)of flight. I think the Liberals will be happy with them until an intrepid pilot decides to crash one into Parliament Hill (assuming he can make it that far; perhaps they can take it near the city on a flatbed).

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to believe it. I saw a Sea King on a RCN Frigate a few weeks back, and from two piers away it look as if it were a deathtrap.

Asher · October 2, 2003, 23:02

Sea Kings need well over 3 hours of maintenance per hour of flight time.

The Canadian Military told the press it took 30 hours of maintenance per one hour of flight time now.

From the National Post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/910033/posts

Quote:

Canada's Sea King helicopters are hovering dinosaurs. Actually, they do not hover much: The 1950s-era aircraft require 30 hours of maintenance for every one hour of flight. Earlier this year, a Sea King crashed on the deck of a Canadian warship, the latest in a long series of snafus.

Lonestar · October 2, 2003, 23:11

But...the RCN doesn't have the money to buy either Seahawks or that new ASW Eurocopter? ( Coromat?)

Asher · October 2, 2003, 23:35

I think they placed a $2.8B for some new ones.

But one of the first things the Liberals did was cancelled the Conservative's order for a bunch of replacement helicopters, in the very early 90s. They had to pay a billion and a half dollars due to contract obligations, and we got zilch.

MrFun · October 2, 2003, 23:57

Canada has a military force!?

DinoDoc · October 2, 2003, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
Canada has a military force!?

Apparently not according to the article.

MrFun · October 3, 2003, 00:00

yeah, I guess

Tingkai · October 3, 2003, 00:26

We do, but it just got smaller.

From the Globe and Mail
Two Canadian soldiers were killed and another three were injured when their vehicle struck an explosive device in the Afghan capital of Kabul on Thursday.

"We know that two were killed and three suffered minor injuries," Jim Munson, communications chief for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, told globeandmail.com.

The two soldiers died while on patrol on a road, more of a "sandy track," about 3 1/2 kilometres southwest of Kabul, Canadian Major-General Andrew Leslie told a news conference by telephone from Kabul.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...International/

The soldiers were driving in an "Iltis" which soldiers say are under-powered, unreliable and offers no protection.

"The Canadian soldiers killed or injured in Thursday's explosion in Kabul were travelling in an Iltis vehicle, a 17-year-old German designed replacement for the reliable old Jeep used in the Second World War and the Korean conflict.
There are 98 Iltis vehicles being used by Canadian troops in Afghanistan, but they do not enjoy a high approval rating among the soldiers. The troops complain that the vehicles are too small, under-powered and undependable."

"Troops outfitted the open Iltis vehicles with spare flak vests and plates on their seats for added protection."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968705899037

They deserve better!

notyoueither · October 3, 2003, 00:34

They won't get it so long as Canadians continue to vote for the weenies who neglected the forces for so long in the first place.

cinch · October 3, 2003, 00:39

They do deserve better, and I hope they get it soon.

I just wish the damn PCs could get their act together. They're just a frigging mess at the moment. They've got MacKay pulling them right, but oh, wait, not right enough to make any compromises with the CA... They're just setting themselves out to sea, here.

And if the PCs are going to wallow in their own filth for a while, then the Liberals will indeed be in power for... a long, long time. So I guess we have no choice but to try and get the Liberals to change one of their policies...

Oy, I wish it was something to laugh about.

MichaeltheGreat · October 3, 2003, 00:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
We do, but it just got smaller.

"Troops outfitted the open Iltis vehicles with spare flak vests and plates on their seats for added protection."

They deserve better!

Yep.

They call those "chicken plates," but it's ironic, since that's the general area you're trying to protect.

Of course, if you hit enough explosive, even a recon Humvee or Bradley (or Abrams) won't do you much good.

Drake Tungsten · October 3, 2003, 01:58

This is the most embarassing thing I've ever read.

Gatekeeper · October 3, 2003, 02:04

Of course, none this would be a problem now if we'd only had the foresight to merge into the United States of North America (USNA) in the past. But, nnnooooo, we were short-sighted then, and we're short-sighted now!

Gatekeeper

P.S. Drake hit the nail on the head, in all seriousness.

Oerdin · October 3, 2003, 02:08

So hasn't the Aurora spy plane been around since the 1980's? The US press still says nothing about it but it would be nice to see some pictures or something.

Gatekeeper · October 3, 2003, 02:13

I'm certain that the Canadians' "Aurora" craft isn't the same as the elusive U.S. "Aurora" spycraft.

Tingkai · October 3, 2003, 02:16

Quote:

A variety of options are being looked at, including having the navy hire a private firm to provide planes for coastal patrols. Such missions are used to keep tabs on ships in Canada's waters as well as environmental problems offshore.

This shows one of the problems. Ottawa not only under funds the military, but also asks it to do non-military jobs like environmental protection, fighting forest fires, help clean up after hurricanes, plow streets after snow storms.

Ben Kenobi · October 3, 2003, 03:07

Quote:

looking at hiring private companies to conduct air sovereignty patrols along the east and west coasts due to budget cuts and equipment shortages,

Am I the only one who sees this as a bad precedent?

Suppose a few companies with military projects got together and wanted to depose the Canadian government?

Drake Tungsten · October 3, 2003, 03:48

Quote:

Suppose a few companies with military projects got together and wanted to depose the Canadian government?

I'm pretty sure America would put a stop to anything like that.

Unless we were controlling the companies all along, that is...

The Mad Monk · October 3, 2003, 03:51

I believe Machiaelli said only a fool would rely on mercenaries for defense.

Lonestar · October 3, 2003, 16:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
So hasn't the Aurora spy plane been around since the 1980's? The US press still says nothing about it but it would be nice to see some pictures or something.

The Canadian Aurora is a modfied P-3 (The plane the Chinese forced down a few years back)

Ben Kenobi · October 3, 2003, 19:31

"Disarming people shows people you distrust them. This offends them and leads to hating you. If you disarm your people, you have to rely on mercenaries, which is useless. "

Machiavelli, The Prince chapter 20 verse 4.

St Leo · October 3, 2003, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Am I the only one who sees this as a bad precedent?

Suppose a few companies with military projects got together and wanted to depose the Canadian government?

More worryingly, suppose a few of these companies tried to diversify into healthcare...

Case · October 3, 2003, 20:11

From memory, the Australian government has been doing something similar to this for years now, and it seems to have worked fairly well. There's no good reason to use large four engined patrol aircraft such as the Orion/Aurora with a crew of 10 for simple tasks like keeping an eye on fishing trawlers when cheaper aircraft can do the job just as well.