Oct. 31 - It's rather

Oct. 31 - It's rather neat to be reading a debate over which armoured transport should be supplied to the Canadian army: after so many years of agitating for better equipment, it is a definite improvement that folks are arguing which should be purchased rather urging that purchases must be made even against this backdrop of orders to Defence Secy. McCallum that he reduce military spending.

Toronto Sun columnist Peter Worthington argues that the Stryker are a Strategic buy and that the opposition should be focused on a bigger issue:

The opposition would be better advised to urge that 166 Strykers be purchased instead of 66.

The Canuckistanian agrees that the Stryker would be a valuable acquisition and cites his own experience (and he too has pictures!).

Have you ever seen a jeep with an oversized gun on it?

Have you ever seen what it can do?

I have and it scared the hell out of me!

Paul still doesn't like the Stryker and links here to a study of Stryker Brigades vs. The Realities of War at the Global Security website, but agrees with Worthington about quantity and also points out that flag officers will outnumber tanks as well as this numbers sting:

Which also brings to mind a rant that has been wandering through my mind of how, if procurement continues the way it has been going when it comes to heavy items - replacing two with one, or less -, by 2100 you should have a grand total of three tanks and two planes facing off against each other on the battlefield ...

Paul wants both more and better. I can't see anything wrong with that, and would be happy to have the heavier tanks as well as the lighter Stryker.

Many of the recommendations by the military are based on a 1998 report which, as I ranted earlier, is irrelevant in this new era of fighting terrorism.

Bottom line: no army would be wise to limit their functionality to a single terrain, field condition, or assumption as to which country they might be deployed to work alongside.

Making purchases on the assumption that larger and heavier American transport will be close by is very short-sighted. Although the Canadian and American military have worked together before, a recent deployment of the Canadian military assisted the French in the Congo, and they are now working with an international force in Afghanistan under German leadership.

What I know about armoured transport is, well, isn't, if you get my drift, but this tiny move by the Liberal Party to seek improvements in the equipment of the military is still a good first step.

Now, about those helicopters:

HALIFAX -- Investigators were examining the engines and gear boxes on two Sea King helicopters yesterday after the aircraft lost power in flight, forcing the military to restrict the fleet's flying time to only critical missions. For the first time in its troubled 40-year history, the aircraft were ordered to stand down and not fly any non-operational flights. The six now able to take to the air in Halifax and the remaining Sea Kings in British Columbia will not be able to conduct routine training missions, but can still respond to emergencies.

That could change as early as today if engineers find enough similarities between the two mishaps to warrant a complete grounding of the geriatric fleet.

Predictably, PM Chretien is not embarrassed that the fleet is grounded. After all, he was willing to see the Snowbirds disbanded for lack of training jets so he could indulge his yen for flying palaces.

We also musn't forget the goofy notion the government put forward that civilians patrol Canada's coast instead of upgrading the navy.

As I see it, fighting for better equipment for the army is Round One. Rounds 2 and 3 are to upgrade the equipment for the air force and the navy.

Support the troops that protect us. It's that simple.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 661 words, total size 5 kb.