A decent Canadian Purchase! (CC-117)

[Hedley]

I'd rather my tax dollars be spent on C-17's than billions wasted on the gun registry, cancelling the EH-101 contract, leaky British submarines that catch fire, the Quebec Sponsorship Scandal, a huge and ineffective public "service", etc.

But that just may be my skewed viewpoint.

[yultoto]

Hmm, what else indeed. The mission to Jamaica should be a pretty could hint of what else they will be used for.

A cousin of mine flew C-17s for the US a few years ago, and spent a large part of the time flying aid/disaster relief missions. Whether it was in support of the UN or directly from the US, he was doing a lot more than flying bombs and tanks around.

Now we can actually do some of this ourselves, on our own terms, without having to beg or borrow a plane from someone else.

Jamaica at 30 tonnes, could have been done in a CC-150, like the Peru flight was done a few days later. The C-17 is going to cost us about $40,000 an hour to fly when cost of acquisition, maintance contract, fuel and crews are factored in. A cargo MD-11 that can carry as much as a C-17 can be chartered for about 10,000$ an hour, one quarter of what flying our own C-17 will cost. When we need such an airplane, 10 times in a year, we can charter. Why are we spending so much? Just for the Glory of flying our own planes?

[yultoto]

I'd rather my tax dollars be spent on C-17's than billions wasted on the gun registry, cancelling the EH-101 contract, leaky British submarines that catch fire, the Quebec Sponsorship Scandal, a huge and ineffective public "service", etc.

But that just may be my skewed viewpoint.

Agreed 100 per cent! But how about spending that money on something that works and that we really need? (Like Helicopter gunships?)

[yultoto]

I find this statement highly insulting to me, and suspect it would be to everyone in uniform.

I find paying for the C-17 highly insulting, based what need we have of it.

We had 707s. They were old. We got rid of them. Some of them were purchased by the US Air Force who dont find them too old and still fly them.

We had CH-47s. They were too old. We got rid of them. They are now flying in the Dutch army and are our envy.

The US Air Force has 1950s B-52s. The French Navy just recently retired their Crusaders. The RAF just retired their V Bombers and still have aircraft based on the 1950 Comet, the first jetliner built before the 707 ever existed.

Welcome to the real world of the military. We're not the poor child of the G8!

[SAR_YQQ]

<snip> something that works and that we really need? (Like Helicopter gunships?)

WOW! AS much as an AH asset would be great - the CC-177 is by far a better use of taxpayer's money.

In order for Canada to be a player on the international scene - it is necessary for us as a Nation to project our goodwill and intent across the planet. In order for this to be best accomplish, we need to possess the ability to move aid, equipment, weapons, etc across vast distances. Renting aircraft does not garner respect - flying huge aircraft with CF livery does.

Do you have any idea how many airframes the USAF currently have stored in the Nevada desert? It takes that many "parked" airframes to support the number of aircraft that they keep flying. The USN is retiring their P-3 airframes daily - in order to keep that fleet alive. The CF has an equally aged fleet of CP-140s and must rely on mid-life upgrades and performance restrictions in order to extend the airframes.

[Mark_space]

Jeez, yultoto...just give it up...

You've beaten this subject to death on PPrune as "Minorite Invisible", to the resounding indifference and disagreement of most...

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=292545

I know it must be painful to see the "Natural Governing Party" suck it HARD in Outremont, but is this the appropriate venue to let your political bias hang out for all to see?

[WJflyer]

No one will ever convince me that a country as small as Canada needed 4 C-17s. Especially when the Afgan mission will be over in alittle over a year. What will they do? Touch and goes in Trenton with an occasional mission overseas?

Hmm, what else indeed. The mission to Jamaica should be a pretty could hint of what else they will be used for.

A cousin of mine flew C-17s for the US a few years ago, and spent a large part of the time flying aid/disaster relief missions. Whether it was in support of the UN or directly from the US, he was doing a lot more than flying bombs and tanks around.

Now we can actually do some of this ourselves, on our own terms, without having to beg or borrow a plane from someone else.

Furthermore, we can use the new C-17's as a way of increasing our presence on the world stage. Imagine a scenario where we can't deploy our troops because we are already deployed elsewhere. We can still contribute by using our C-17's to fly someone else's military over to the trouble zone. We are still contributing, but in a different manner.

A good portion of the Canadian population, from my experience supports the buy. Yes, they are expensive, but they understand that it helps the military do its job, and whenever rightly or wrongly, they believe the C-17 will help us help other nations around the world through peacekeeping (don't get me started on how peacekeeping is a myth today).

Fact: C-17 is one of the world's few in production heavy cargo lifters that can land on unprepared airstrips and move cargo to areas where the existing infrastructure is not up to snuff. For example, with our flight to Jamaica, we loaded 13 463L master pallets of cargo to deliver to Jamaica on this training operation. C-17 can carry 18 463L master pallets. We could also load a forklift onboard as well if the airfield infrastructure was limited so we can self-load. This would be useful had we flown into a area with limited airfield infrastructure, say to East Timor or Sri Lanka. All we need is a aid truck to pull up beside the airplane, get the forklift driver to hop into his forklift, unload the pallets with the help of the loadmaster while the pilots give a hand when needed, and after the pallets are unloaded, drive the forklift back on, secure it, and head back home. No need to wait for a K-loader to become available with the crews needed to operate and unload the bird to become free. No need for amateurish attempts at getting aid to needly places.

[conehead]

"We had 707s. They were old. We got rid of them. Some of them were purchased by the US Air Force who dont find them too old and still fly them."

I don't think so. They were some of the highest cycle 707's in the world. I witnessed one have it's landing gear collapse while refuelling in Germany. Those old girls were very, very tired.

[yultoto]

In order for Canada to be a player on the international scene.......to project our goodwill and intent across the planet. In order for this to be best accomplish, we need to possess the ability to move aid, equipment, weapons, etc across vast distances. Renting aircraft does not garner respect - flying huge aircraft with CF livery does.

So we are spending 3.4 Billion dollars to garner respect and project goodwill? Don't you think we would have gardered more respect and goodwill had we spent 3.4 billion dollars in international aid for example?

[yultoto]

"We had 707s. They were old. We got rid of them. Some of them were purchased by the US Air Force who dont find them too old and still fly them."

I don't think so. They were some of the highest cycle 707's in the world. I witnessed one have it's landing gear collapse while refuelling in Germany. Those old girls were very, very tired.

So tired indeed......

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/52/52-39.pdf

[WJflyer]

"We had 707s. They were old. We got rid of them. Some of them were purchased by the US Air Force who dont find them too old and still fly them."

I don't think so. They were some of the highest cycle 707's in the world. I witnessed one have it's landing gear collapse while refuelling in Germany. Those old girls were very, very tired.

So tired indeed......

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/52/52-39.pdf

In case you haven't noticed, most were used as a source for spare parts, the others extensively remanufactuered (in other words, they were rebuilt from the ground up). The USAF at the time was buying any Boeing 707 that can fly to use for spare parts for all of their Boeing 707 variants, including the KC-135 Stratotanker. I believe out of the 5, 3 or 4 of them are scrapped.

[WJflyer]

Just a quick update, 177702 is off the assembly line. She's the second of the 4 C-17's we are taking.



Ain't she a beaut?

[express]

she sure is...all the best to those who fly 'em and especially to those who need the things she brings!!!! Finally some good kit.

[the_professor]

Yes they are very much different from each other. The only thing they share in common is the same basic airframe. It stops there. Think cramming 2 S-3 Vikings into a P-3 airframe. That and a few other things make the CP-140 Aurora an aircraft unique in the world.

I had a P-3 come through the other day. Or was it a "CP-140"? I'm not sure: It flew under the CanForce callsign, but the flight plan said it was a "P3".

In any event, when I had to pass traffic I just said "At your 12 o'clock for eight miles are two S-3s crammed into a P-3".... Nobody asked any questions...

[yultoto]

Jeez, yultoto...just give it up...

You've beaten this subject to death on PPrune as "Minorite Invisible", to the resounding indifference and disagreement of most...

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=292545

What came out of the PPrune thread is that, unlike what was claimed here on this Forum, the British have never carried a Challenger 2 tank in any of their C-17s. They say there is "no need for it" although they do claim "it can be done".

And notice that the only flak I got on Pprune came from fellow Canadians. A great bunch......

Take it for what its worth......

[yultoto]

No one will ever convince me that a country as small as Canada needed 4 C-17s. Especially when the Afgan mission will be over in alittle over a year. What will they do? Touch and goes in Trenton with an occasional mission overseas?

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Why would a country like ours, a G8 country, need it's own transport aircraft? You mean the country with the world's second-largest land mass? What kind of a moron would ask a question like that?

I don't think that the C-17 will ever be used domestically, except betwen places like Bagotville, Trenton, Edmonton, Quebec and Fredericton. It just cant go to most of the airports in Canada either because of runway length (it can go if needed, but why risk it? is the rationale) or because of Pavement Classification Number in the case of most gravel runways (it can go, but will damage the runway, so why go there?)

Who bought C-17s?: Blair, Howard, Harper, period. Does that say anything to you? No other G-8 have any, nor do they want any. They are very expensive machines to own and operate for what they can do that commercial aircraft can't (rear ramp off loading), and in the case of rear ramp commercial aircraft such as the Il-76 and An-124, nothing.

And don't say anything about places where civilians will not go. We have for years been chartering Civilian Il-76s, An-124s, An-12s to go where our own military CC-150 will not go, Afghanistan. Are they stupid? No. Are they taking risks? No. If they are, what can we say of commercial aircraft, B-757s, B-737s and B-727 full of passengers that fly in and out of Afghanistan?

Look here. http://www.pbase.com/flying_dutchman

It is the website of a Dutch pilot/photographer, who spent two years flying a civilian Dutch Fokker F-50, on contract for the military there. He spent 2 years flying troops around Afghanistan, without any form of protection whatsoever, no blankets, no helmets, no frag vests, no LAIRCM, no ECM, no nothing. He flew to just about every airfield in Afghanistan, in broad daylight and even landed with his landing lights on!

But all these civilian pilots always go, regardless of the risk and it is thanks to them that the Afghan mission was possible at all. Yet all we do is shit on them while our "unprotected crew" stay back in Dubai and those of our crews that do go to Kandahar in "protected" aircraft wear helmets, frag vests and put protective blankets to protect themselves from a threat that does not exist. (It reminds of the Canadian Customs officers in Toronto who wear bullet proof vests while on duty inside the arrival terminal, where every passenger there has already been screened and has already traveled on a airplane.)

We dont need this capability. We keep saying the Russians could block our airlift. The Il-76 is built in Uzbekistran, the An-124s in Ukraine and in Russia. Silk Way whoses airlines that the CF has been chartering for years is based in Azerbaidjan. Antonov Airlines is based in Kiev, Ukraine. There are 250 civilian IL-76s in the world in about 35 countries, including a couple European Union countries (Latvia, Hungary). How can Russian bar access to all of them and why would they?

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/09/c ... -c-17.html

[WJflyer]

Yes they are very much different from each other. The only thing they share in common is the same basic airframe. It stops there. Think cramming 2 S-3 Vikings into a P-3 airframe. That and a few other things make the CP-140 Aurora an aircraft unique in the world.

I had a P-3 come through the other day. Or was it a "CP-140"? I'm not sure: It flew under the CanForce callsign, but the flight plan said it was a "P3".

In any event, when I had to pass traffic I just said "At your 12 o'clock for eight miles are two S-3s crammed into a P-3".... Nobody asked any questions...

The CP-140 Aurora handles and behaves just like any other P-3 Orion out there. The only major difference is the sub hunting gear that is installed.

Yultoto:

Fact: Availability of these Eastern bloc aircraft is going DOWN not up. These frames are aging, and the number out there fixed.

Fact: The Russians have embargoed aircraft to us and our allies in the past. Russia is the primary supplier of spare parts for all Antonov and Ilyushin aircraft. They can threaten companies who are outside of Russia who operate Russian aircraft with the cutting off of spare parts and technical assistance, leaving their aircraft unserviceable.

In addition, the Russians are playing hard ball and punishing nations they see as being under their sphere of influence who behave contrary to the Russian line. See the Russian-Ukraine gas dispute, the current Russian-Georgian dispute, etc, where all of these countries have elected pro-Western leaders, and they are punishing for electing pro-Western leaders.

Fact: The Russians are getting more aggressive and assertive on the world stage. Some of the rhetoric coming out of their country sounds remarkably like the type of rhetoric coming out of the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. I can bet you that in 10-20 years, it will be the Cold War all over again. Canada is not in the business of borrowing from our potential enemies.

This is a nation that has unilaterally withdrawn from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. This is a nation that refuses to extradite the primary suspects in the Litvinenko poisoning. This is a nation that silences critics internally by throwing them in jail or they die in very suspicious circumstances.

Anyone with a international relations or a political science background or degree can figure out why we can't continue to rent Eastern-bloc aircraft. It is not sustainable, and increasingly, the ability to rent such aircraft is dependent on the goodwill of the Russians, which won't last long.

[yultoto]

Fact: The Russians have embargoed aircraft to us and our allies in the past. Russia is the primary supplier of spare parts for all Antonov and Ilyushin aircraft. They can threaten companies who are outside of Russia who operate Russian aircraft with the cutting off of spare parts and technical assistance, leaving their aircraft unserviceable.

I researched that, its a legend. All they did once was bar the use of their airspace to NATO transports, which had nothing to do with the type of aircraft being flown. They never blocked the use of the IL-76 or An-124 airlifters, not once. You just wish they had.....
If you have proof about the Russians blocking western use of Russian built aircraft, post it here please, for all to see.

However, it is true that the French did prevent the UK from chartering french aircraft to carry troops to Iraq. Use that as an argument to cut out the A400M.

In addition, the Russians are playing hard ball and punishing nations they see as being under their sphere of influence who behave contrary to the Russian line. See the Russian-Ukraine gas dispute, the current Russian-Georgian dispute, etc, where all of these countries have elected pro-Western leaders, and they are punishing for electing pro-Western leaders.

In the gas dispute, all Russia asked Ukraine and Georgia is to start paying the same price other western countries paid, no more, no less. Up to that point, as Russian "allies", they had paid the gas at the subsidized prices reserved to Russians. Russia cut the subsidies. Fair enough in my book.

Unlike the US, which tells companies in the rest of the world, including in Canada, that if they do business in Cuba, they can't do business in the US.
Many companies in Canada have had to turn down international deals by fear of US reprisals. No Cuban citizen is allowed to rent a room in any Hilton Hotel in Canada according to US laws. But you wouldn't criticize that would you? Your allegiances are more to the US than to than to Canada. You are the one who bragged on this Forum about being ITAR approved. I would find shame in being ITAR approved, let alone brag about it on a Forum. I am not anyones lapdog. ITAR approved = Canadian bowing to made-in-Washington pressure, nothing else.

Fact: The Russians are getting more aggressive and assertive on the world stage. Some of the rhetoric coming out of their country sounds remarkably like the type of rhetoric coming out of the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. I can bet you that in 10-20 years, it will be the Cold War all over again. Canada is not in the business of borrowing from our potential enemies.

Lets count together the countries that Russia has invaded since the breakup of the Soviet Union? Zero

That were bombed by Russia? Zero

That were threatened with military action by Russia? Zero

Now ask the same questions about the US. Invaded? Several. Bombed? Several. Threatened? Several.

Russia dismantled the Warsaw pact and cut all countries under their influence loose. NATO was not only NOT dismantled, after the end of the Cold War it expanded its membership and capabilities by recruiting ex members countries of the Warsaw pact. For what? The no longer existing Soviet Union?

Russia closed bases and withdrew from many countries. In each of those countries, the US moved in and built bases.

Russia reduced its military budget and reduced the size of its military.

The US continually increased its military budgets after the cold war and increased the size of its military to the point where now it has a larger military budget than all the other countries of the planet put together, its still going to increase. All this at the cost of a huge budget deficit, that cannot be justified in today's world climate. The truth is that the US feeds off military conflicts and need them to survive.

Read this, written not by myself but an American University professor:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c3171d6e-2df2 ... fd2ac.html

The US while pretending to promote human rights and democracy, is the most destabilizing country in the world.

Look at a World Globe and you will see that it is Russia that is ringed with US and NATO bases, not the US that is surrounded by Russian bases.
The US has bases in Alaska, Japan, South Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan, the Philipines, Afghanistan, Kysgyzstan, Tajikistan, Iraq, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Germany. Then all of NATO cover Russia's western borders. The US has negociated military aircfraft landing rights in a number of other countries like Azerbaidjan and Georgia and spend money upgrading military installations in these countries to suit its needs.
Russia had stoped lomg range bomber patrols and kept its nuclear submarines in base. The US has never stopped sending out its spy and snooper planes along the russian border and there are american sub on station off the Russian coast on a permanent basis. It had never stopped. But that never made the news did it? at least not Fox News that you read.

And its the Americans who have the gall to claim they are worried? Should it not be the other way around based on what I just wrote?

And you are ignorant enough to believe this US dis-information propaganda made for un-educated mid-west farmers, not for university educated Ottawa boys.

This is a nation that has unilaterally withdrawn from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. This is a nation that refuses to extradite the primary suspects in the Litvinenko poisoning. This is a nation that silences critics internally by throwing them in jail or they die in very suspicious circumstances.

Russia has every reason to worry.
Do you know that long before the Litvinenko affair, the UK had refused to extradite anyone to Russia despite repeated attempts? You probably do, but choose to pretend you dont.

Do you know that it is against the Russian constitution to extradite Russian citizens overseas? I am certain that you know. But chose to ignore that too, because it explains too easily why Russian cannot extradite its citizens.

Do you critisize the US for refusing to extrade the CIA agents that are accused by German and Italian courts for kidnapping and "rendering" a German Citizen and an Egyptian in Italy? I guess not. Thats ok because its your buddies the US that does it. You wouldn't even criticize them when they "rendred", or lets call it by its name, captured an innocent Canadian and shipped him off shackled and hooded to be tortured in Syria? Thats ok by you too right?

Military and people like yourself who get a paycheck from the military have a nostalgia of the good old days of the Cold War when military budgets were unlimited and put most large industrialised countries into deep debt that will take generations to recover from. Those days are over and will not come back, no matter how much people like yourself, Bush and Harper try to come back to them to line their pockets and those of their MIC buddies on the backs of often credulous and ignorant taxpayers. In this age of the Internet, where all is known and nothing can be hidden for long, it just is no longer possible.
The Liberals with all their faults had brought the defict under control and in a few short months, Harper is squandering all of that effort by useless military spending in the United States to play lapdog.

Even your indulgent press now has a hard time getting the NEO CON propaganda across thanks to the Internet, to Bloggers, to the little free press that does exist.

So dream on.......

[yultoto]

By the way, there is a rumour going around that the new C-17 is plagged with technical problems, which is why we dont see or hear much about it these days. True, not true, I dont know, but one thing for sure is that it is not doing the flag waving I was expecting DND to do with it once it arrived...

[WJflyer]

By the way, there is a rumour going around that the new C-17 is plagged with technical problems, which is why we dont see or hear much about it these days. True, not true, I dont know, but one thing for sure is that it is not doing the flag waving I was expecting DND to do with it once it arrived...

I can tell you that rumor is patently false. There hasn't been much of a opportunity to do much flag waving as Canadian Forces operations take precedence over flag waving and airshows right now. My sources comes direct from the guys operating the aircraft.

I researched that, its a legend. All they did once was bar the use of their airspace to NATO transports, which had nothing to do with the type of aircraft being flown. They never blocked the use of the IL-76 or An-124 airlifters, not once. You just wish they had.....
If you have proof about the Russians blocking western use of Russian built aircraft, post it here please, for all to see.

However, it is true that the French did prevent the UK from chartering french aircraft to carry troops to Iraq. Use that as an argument to cut out the A400M.

And your research does not include the rest of NATO; I know the Brits were denied AN-124 charters by the Russians on a number of occasions since the mid 1990's.

In the gas dispute, all Russia asked Ukraine and Georgia is to start paying the same price other western countries paid, no more, no less. Up to that point, as Russian "allies", they had paid the gas at the subsidized prices reserved to Russians. Russia cut the subsidies. Fair enough in my book.

Unlike the US, which tells companies in the rest of the world, including in Canada, that if they do business in Cuba, they can't do business in the US.
Many companies in Canada have had to turn down international deals by fear of US reprisals. No Cuban citizen is allowed to rent a room in any Hilton Hotel in Canada according to US laws. But you wouldn't criticize that would you? Your allegiances are more to the US than to than to Canada. You are the one who bragged on this Forum about being ITAR approved. I would find shame in being ITAR approved, let alone brad about it on a Forum. I am not anyones lapdog. ITAR approved = Canadian bowing to made-in-Washington pressure, nothing else.

The Russian-Georgian dispute isn't only over gas; its over Georgian internal matters. If you had payed attention to the news, the Georgians and the Russians are almost at a state of war with each other. The Russians are known to be supporting separatists in Georgia, was caught spying on Georgia in 2006, is suspected of sabotaging or willfully ignoring saboteurs who damaged a pipeline running from Armenia through Russia into Georgia, repeatedly violates Georgian airspace, makes frequent anti-Georgian statements to the press, and is engaged in economic blackmail with the Georgian economy.

To add fuel to the fire, there is a major controversy in the area regarding recent remarks by the Russian ambassador to Georgia, Vyacheslav Kovalenko, which he referred to the Georgian people as a "dying-out nation", and announced to the Georgians that they will soon became extinct in the face of globalization while Russia is "a large country, a huge country. It can digest this. You, the Georgians, will fail to digest this."

And besides that, the Russians are involved in a very bloody war with Chechnya. From correspondence with my former professor of Post-Soviet studies, there are rumors spreading in Russian society that the current Chechen war was in fact orchestrated by Putin to boost his popularity polls.

I can tell you that the Russians are now flexing their military muscle more and more. Just last week, a couple of our fighters intercepted a flight of Russian Tu-95 Bear's who entered our air space. This has been occurring on a weekly, sometimes daily basis for a number of years.

In short, we don't buy stuff from our enemies or potential enemies; Russia, from its increasingly hawkish behaviour, is most likely going to be one again.

[shitdisturber]

"We had 707s. They were old. We got rid of them. Some of them were purchased by the US Air Force who dont find them too old and still fly them."

I don't think so. They were some of the highest cycle 707's in the world. I witnessed one have it's landing gear collapse while refuelling in Germany. Those old girls were very, very tired.

You're pretty much bang on, they were the four highest cycle 707's in the world; that was well known even to those of us in the fighter community.

As for the US having paid $6.8 million or whatever it was for them; when you buy four airliners for that kind of money, they're parts bins not flyable airframes.

[Expat]

WJ,
As a former military officer, I had all the same convictions as you have now. I was brought up in fear of the bad communists. They were so powerful, mean, etc
Until I came here three years ago. I started to learn Russian, and watch their TV daily. I travelled to Russia twelve times so far. I work with ex-soviet military officers. I ought to have picked up a few things by now.
The thing is that we, in the were brain-washed, in order to justify our military might.
All US military actions since WW2 were against the advancing soviet menace...NATO was preparing for war against them.
NATO standards almost killed arms manufacturers in Europe.
Yes, since the collapse of the soviet union, the US has aggressively tried to sqeeze Russia. They have opened bases, destabilized governments, they were involved in all the wars in former soviet republics.
The Litvinenko affair is not what it looks like.
It was part ofa much larger scheme. his ex-partner, Berezovzki, the oligarch that fled Russia with stolen billions, and was granted refugee status by the UK, used his funds to finance the orange revolution in Ukraine, and meddle with elections there. The elections, were declared fair by the west, but what a farce it was.
All the countries surrounding Russia are rich with oil, gas and uranium.

This is a very big political game with power and money at stake.
It is sad that very few people really get to understand what is at stake.
For instance, the US and British contractors at work in Iraq and Afghanistan are involved in covert operations in Chechnia, and a lot of ex-soviet countries. They used the war on terrorism as a cover. They are slowly expelled, because these countries realise that they were duped.
The problem with listening to scholars that come from the east, is that they all have an axe to grind, like the Miami Cubans...Their speach is always biased, and they are not challenged.
My two cents...

[yultoto]

"We had 707s. They were old. We got rid of them. Some of them were purchased by the US Air Force who dont find them too old and still fly them."

I don't think so. They were some of the highest cycle 707's in the world. I witnessed one have it's landing gear collapse while refuelling in Germany. Those old girls were very, very tired.

You're pretty much bang on, they were the four highest cycle 707's in the world; that was well known even to those of us in the fighter community.

As for the US having paid $6.8 million or whatever it was for them; when you buy four airliners for that kind of money, they're parts bins not flyable airframes.

Reference : Boeing CC-137: In Canadian Service Prod./ISBN No.: 1-551250-79-9

"Operated by 437(T) Squadron from its base at CFB Trenton, the CC137 was in the forefront of the many and varied tasks that the Canadian Forces undertook over the years that the aircraft was in service. When the last two CC137s were replaced by the CC150 Polaris, the surplus aircraft were sold off, and three of them still soldier on as the E-8 JSTARS aircraft of the USAF."

[yultoto]

I can tell you that rumor is patently false. There hasn't been much of a opportunity to do much flag waving as Canadian Forces operations take precedence over flag waving and airshows right now. My sources comes direct from the guys operating the aircraft.

Perhaps. I have no data to say otherwise, but in time we'll know.

And your research does not include the rest of NATO; I know the Brits were denied AN-124 charters by the Russians on a number of occasions since the mid 1990's.

So now you know what my reseach included? If you have proof, such as reference, articles, reports, post them here, or else give it up. I think Senator Colin Kenny did mention that in one of his Defence papers (why dont you quote him as your source?) , but many of the things Senator Kenny says are false. He's the one who wrote that the "An-124s are old rickety aircraft and there are not many left". The oldest civilian An-124 was certified in 1991 and two crashed out of the 29 that were manufactured (plus one prototype during certification flights). The newest was delivered in 2004. They are all younger than Canada's CF-18s and CC-150s. I hope you have a better source than Senator Kenny.

suspected of sabotaging or willfully ignoring saboteurs who damaged a pipeline running from Armenia through Russia into Georgia

Have you looked at a map recently? Russia and Armenia do not have a common border. That pipeline goes from Russia, through Georgia and then into Armenia. It was sabotaged by South Ossetian Georgian separatists (who are ehnic Russians).

The problem with the separatist movements in ex Soviet Republics, is that when they became indepnedent, most of them had a backlash against ethnic Russians. In many of the "Stans", the ethnic Russians who in many cases had been born and raised in those republics, were forced to leave and moved to Russia, a place they did not know or never been to. This occured in Kazahkstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaidjan, Kysgyzstan, Tajikistan (all predominently muslim republics). (Its a bit their fault because an ethnic Russian, even afer three generations in Kazahkstan, still calls himself "Russian" and never "Kazahk" who for him are peasants) It also happened to a lessor degree in the three Baltic republics. Where it did not occur is Armenia, where the Armenian share the Othodox faith of the Russians, Georgia where in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, ethnic Russians who are in majority, decided to stay part of Russia and break off from Georgia to defend their rights. They just did not want to be kicked out of their homes like it happened to millions of ehnic Russian in most other Ex-Republics.
The same think occured in Moldova when the predominently ethnic Russian area of Transnistria (a thin stretch of land between Moldova and Ukraine) declared itself indenpendent from Moldova.

In all three cases, Russia came to the rescue of its ethnic Russian minorities, but did not in either of the 3 cases, impose separation or facilitate it. The powerful Russia could have crushed Georgia and Moldova with great ease but is trying to find a negociated political solution that does not involve force.

And besides that, the Russians are involved in a very bloody war with Chechnya.

Chechnya was never a Soviet Republic but is part of Russia proper. It has been since 1783. When the Germans were approaching during WWII, they rebelled against the Soviet Union thinking they were going to be liberated by the Nazi and Stalin deported the whole populuation to Siberia.
Unlike the other 3 cases I just mentionned, this is a case of a Muslim minority that does not to be ruled by Othodox Christians. They wanted to become independent like the other ex Soviet Muslim republics although they were not and had never had the status of a Republic. They are just an OBlast within Russia. I'd like to see what would happen if Louisiana decided to seperate from the US and started planting bombs and killing US policemen and soldiers. The Russians are facing inside of their own borders somthing not unlike what is going on in Afghanistan.

Russia has on the contrary again and again shown a lot of restraint, with the occasional ugly stuff, as always happens in conflict areas.

Now, how does all of this make Russia an ennemy of Canada again? I fail to see.

Two cents from a dumb airline pilot without a political science degree but who has travelled and has friends from Armenia, Azerbaidjan, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Moldova and many other places and who listens to them and their real stories and problems, and not what DND Cold War nostalgics write in their hyped up reports about the big bad Soviet Communits Bear coming back to attack freedom and democracy.

[WJflyer]

"We had 707s. They were old. We got rid of them. Some of them were purchased by the US Air Force who dont find them too old and still fly them."

I don't think so. They were some of the highest cycle 707's in the world. I witnessed one have it's landing gear collapse while refuelling in Germany. Those old girls were very, very tired.

You're pretty much bang on, they were the four highest cycle 707's in the world; that was well known even to those of us in the fighter community.

As for the US having paid $6.8 million or whatever it was for them; when you buy four airliners for that kind of money, they're parts bins not flyable airframes.

Reference : Boeing CC-137: In Canadian Service Prod./ISBN No.: 1-551250-79-9

"Operated by 437(T) Squadron from its base at CFB Trenton, the CC137 was in the forefront of the many and varied tasks that the Canadian Forces undertook over the years that the aircraft was in service. When the last two CC137s were replaced by the CC150 Polaris, the surplus aircraft were sold off, and three of them still soldier on as the E-8 JSTARS aircraft of the USAF."

And Northrop, in order to give the birds a bit more life, extensively rebuilt them from the ground up before installing the new electronics. They pretty much tore apart and built a whole new airplane. The JSTARS is now planned to be replaced by possibility the E-10 MC2A or a variant of the RQ-4 Global Hawk. As of right now, they plan to re-engine.

The USAF don't fly that many missions with the JSTARS. Then USAF has a fleet of 17 of them, meaning that hours are spread out across a larger fleet.

Expat:

Actions speak louder than words. The Russians are deliberately thumbing the West, and are causing more concern for the nations surrounding them. Just a few months ago, Estonia accused Russia of hacking their government computers. This attack was apparently in response to the removal of a Russian World War II war memorial from downtown Estonia. The attack was a distributed denial of service attack in which selected sites were bombarded with traffic in order to force them offline; nearly all Estonian government ministry networks as well as two major Estonian bank networks were knocked offline; in addition, the political party website of Estonia's current Prime Minister Andrus Ansip featured a counterfeit letter of apology from Ansip for removing the memorial statue. An attack of this sophistication could only have been supported by a national government, and which government has been making anti-Estonian remarks and fanning the flames? Russia.