Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:44 pm    Post subject: 4 to 5 billion dollars Reply with quote

Why not charter our heavy lift needs from a Canadian Contractor who will buy the C-17's. Why not charter ice breaker supply, service and construction ships for the high north. For both of these transports can be much better utillizes by a contractor then the government can buying these them selfs. Not to mention the Canadian mining , oil and gas and other projects that can all be serviced as well as the Military and Canadian Government. The cost is also considerabliy cheaper and will actully provide more capacity to the military and Canadian Government !
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I would like to see is an ice breaking, nuclear powered aircraft carrier, that could operate in the far north even in the dead of winter. Right now Canada does not even have the capability to ice break to the pole during the summer. The Russians are the only ones in the world with this capability. Nothing projects power like an aircraft carrier, and we need to project power if we want to assert sovereignty in the North. We need permanent detection and deterrence for the North.

As for the aircraft leasing, is there anyone willing to do that? These are expensive aircraft. As I understand it, there are a couple of NATO countries that operate them, and they coordinate and do the heavy lifting for everyone. Canada's will be fit into the rotation, and probably fly regular routes between here and Europe.
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
What I would like to see is an ice breaking, nuclear powered aircraft carrier, that could operate in the far north even in the dead of winter. Right now Canada does not even have the capability to ice break to the pole during the summer. The Russians are the only ones in the world with this capability. Nothing projects power like an aircraft carrier, and we need to project power if we want to assert sovereignty in the North. We need permanent detection and deterrence for the North.

As for the aircraft leasing, is there anyone willing to do that? These are expensive aircraft. As I understand it, there are a couple of NATO countries that operate them, and they coordinate and do the heavy lifting for everyone. Canada's will be fit into the rotation, and probably fly regular routes between here and Europe.


I like your Idea of Ice Breaking Aircraft Carriers, but we still need to have smaller Ice breakers as well and I think the multy purpose vessel on charter is agian a better solution to one of Canada's needs. We do need aircraft carriers I believe as well but winter patrolls could be chartered out agian on a wet charter. The government would ownly need to put their Navy people on board the Contractor ships.
Yes I can lease these or a wet charter was what I had in mind. I think we could employ 10 if we had them, our mining and oil and gas as well as other nations you spoke of all are in need of their service capabilities.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is Canada buying or leasing these aircraft? I know that airlines don't buy aircraft anymore, is it the same for armies and governments?
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Is Canada buying or leasing these aircraft? I know that airlines don't buy aircraft anymore, is it the same for armies and governments?


They are buying them from Boeing. Boeing is willing to sell them to me they say I have been in transportation for 25 years and would like to buy 6 more in addition to these 4.
I will take over the service agreement with Boeing and Canada will have 10 of these instead of 4 !
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have always been interested in the heavy lift dirigible business myself. A lot of advantages over helicopters. I have so many ideas that I will never follow up on.
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I have always been interested in the heavy lift dirigible business myself. A lot of advantages over helicopters. I have so many ideas that I will never follow up on.


Why are you interested in the heavy lift business?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am just interested in a lot of different things. The advantages that a dirigible has, the load does not plummet to earth if there is an engine failure, less fuel needed, less maintenance than a helicopter. They can operate in the same remote and inaccessible areas.

Another thing I am interested in is solar power generation. Not panels though, I believe that they are inefficient. http://www.stirlingenergy.com/

I was thinking that this could be combined with some ground source heat pumps to produce electricity 24 hours a day.
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I am just interested in a lot of different things. The advantages that a dirigible has, the load does not plummet to earth if there is an engine failure, less fuel needed, less maintenance than a helicopter. They can operate in the same remote and inaccessible areas.

Another thing I am interested in is solar power generation. Not panels though, I believe that they are inefficient. http://www.stirlingenergy.com/

I was thinking that this could be combined with some ground source heat pumps to produce electricity 24 hours a day.


That is true a C 17 can land in less then 1600 ft with 75 ton payloads !


I like windmills and water wheels as well as hydro dams!
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why does Canada need an aircraft carrier? It would be cool but its not needed and would be a huge waste of money.
I think that money could be better spent on ground forces and upgrading our airlift ability.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I have so many ideas that I will never follow up on.


I hear that :P
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
Why does Canada need an aircraft carrier? It would be cool but its not needed and would be a huge waste of money.
I think that money could be better spent on ground forces and upgrading our airlift ability.


Aircraft carriers are mobil bases that bring the airplanes and people where ever they are needed. They are best for Nations with long coastlines like Canada, and large isolated areas like Canada's high north. Not to mention that they do transmite power which is the main reason to have a military in the first place. But best of all a carrier can go nearly anywhere in the world. Anywhere Canada has to go she can do with aircraft carriers!
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
They are best for Nations with long coastlines like Canada, and large isolated areas like Canada's high north.

I fail to see why we can not just use land bases. Besides if you needed to help up north I think a Herc would help more than a fighter plane.
Quote:
Not to mention that they do transmite power which is the main reason to have a military in the first place.

I agree but the US already has enough aircraft carriers, why does Canada need one? If there was an arms race in carriers maybe but no one is in a position to challenege the US Nazy for 20 years. 11 of the 20 carriers in the world are US and they are all super carriers and no one else has super carriers.

Quote:
But best of all a carrier can go nearly anywhere in the world. Anywhere Canada has to go she can do with aircraft carriers!

American carriers are already everywhere, what would a Canadian carrier do that the Americans are not already doing?

Simply put Canada getting an aircraft carrier would be cool but it would be a poor use of money and resources.
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
Quote:
They are best for Nations with long coastlines like Canada, and large isolated areas like Canada's high north.

I fail to see why we can not just use land bases. Besides if you needed to help up north I think a Herc would help more than a fighter plane.
Quote:
Not to mention that they do transmite power which is the main reason to have a military in the first place.

I agree but the US already has enough aircraft carriers, why does Canada need one? If there was an arms race in carriers maybe but no one is in a position to challenege the US Nazy for 20 years. 11 of the 20 carriers in the world are US and they are all super carriers and no one else has super carriers.

Quote:
But best of all a carrier can go nearly anywhere in the world. Anywhere Canada has to go she can do with aircraft carriers!

American carriers are already everywhere, what would a Canadian carrier do that the Americans are not already doing?

Simply put Canada getting an aircraft carrier would be cool but it would be a poor use of money and resources.

Land bases are great for fights on land or over land, but as you may know many wars are fought at sea and in the air over the sea and over the land. We can not pick up a land base and park it in the plath of an attacking force. Defending the North and the vast areas, we would need to build half a dozen bases in the North or we could build 3 Super Super Cape Size air craft Carriers ourslelfs.
True American Carriers are there with French and Brtish and Russian and Chinese and Japanese and otherss but no Canadians now not for 30 years now !We need to pull our own weight here in Fortress North America !
Personaly I perferr the BC-17
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
but as you may know many wars are fought at sea and in the air over the sea and over the land.

There is almost (I say this because you should never say never) no chance that Canada will get involved in a war like this without America. If we have America we will wint he naval and air war. What was the last war where this was a real issue? 25 years ago when the Uk and Arg. fought!
Quote:
or we could build 3 Super Super Cape Size air craft Carriers ourslelfs.

Now you want Canada to build 3 aircraft carriers!?!?!?!?! China doesnt even have 1 yet!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....iers_today
Nine countries maintain a total of 20 aircraft carriers in active service: United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Italy, India, Spain, Brazil, and Thailand. In addition the People's Republic of China's People's Liberation Army Navy possesses the former Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, but most naval analysts believe that they have no intention to operate it, but instead are using Varyag to learn about carrier operations for future Chinese aircraft carriers. South Korea, United Kingdom, Canada, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, Australia, Chile, Singapore and France also operate vessels capable of carrying and operating multiple helicopters.

I really think a Canadian investment in something other than an aircraft carrier would be a better way for canada to 'pull our own weight' as you put it.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


4 to 5 billion dollars

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB