Canada, Russia, air clash ‘no problem’
p2pnet view Politics:- Canadians can now sleep soundly.
On their behalf, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper and his defense minister Peter McKay (right) are doing their best to set off a new cold war, with brinkmanship again the key word.
For decades the Russian, US, Canadian, French, German and UK airforces have been playing tag with each other, approaching each other’s imaginary air spaces.
It can get hairy — ask Tom Cruise — but it’s good training for the military in the air, at sea, and on the ground. And a lot of high-energy fun for the pilots.
It’s never been a major deal but now, just as McKay and his boss, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, have decided Canada needs new F-35 jets at a cost of $16 billion dollars, it’s becoming one.
As p2pnet reported yesterday, two Canadian CF-18s recently confronted two elderly TU-95 Russian bombers.
Happens all the time, we’re told.
BUT — not just when Harper is trying to justify a massive outlay of cash at a time when money is desperately needed to improve our health care systems, raise the standards of living on some First Nations, house people who don’t have a lot, pay back some of the $2 billion he blew on his recent G20 houseparty. The list goes on.
So now these routine air games have suddenly become matters of extreme importance and “any future incursions can expect the same swift response”, says McKay sternly, as quoted by CTV News.
“They were on the scene to repel these Russian bombers,” he said , observing the TU-95s came “closer than we have seen in recent times.”
But the flight was “simply a training exercise that didn’t enter Canadian territory, which is defined as a 200-nautical-mile zone beyond the coast”, the Globe and Mail has a Russian embassy spokesman saying.
“We haven’t violated Canadian airspace.
“There is no problem here.”
Stay tuned.
… and identi.ca
p2pnet – Canadian jets bounce Russian bombers, July 30, 2010
CTV News – Canadian jets repelled Russian bombers: MacKay, July 30, 2010
Globe and Mail – Russian jet confrontation a ‘close one,’ July 30, 2010
Defence official says
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 31st, 2010 at 11:02 am
Two CF-18s would be more than a match for two Bears.
July 31st, 2010 at 11:51 am
“The Tupolev Tu-95 (Russian: Туполев Ту–95) (NATO reporting name: Bear) is a large, four-engine turboprop powered strategic bomber and missile platform. First flown in 1952, the Tu-95 was put into service by the former Soviet Union in 1956 and is expected to serve the Russian Air Force until at least 2040.”
The Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95
A number of different fighter aircraft have been considered by the Canadian Forces as replacements for the CF-18 with the F-35 Lightning II, Eurofighter Typhoon, SAAB JAS 39 Gripen, and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet all having been promoted as contenders by their respective manufacturers. According to Le Devoir, project costs without considering maintenance, training and spare parts, are estimated at $4 to $8 billion. Boeing has indicated the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, a derivative of the F/A-18 Hornet, is a less expensive alternative at an estimated total cost of $4 billion. One of the manufacturers in contention: Boeing, BAE Systems and Saab Aerospace, has promised to assemble the entire aircraft in Canada although the name was not publicly disclosed.
In July 2010 the Canadian government announced the replacement for the CF-18 will be the F-35 Lightning II. The Canadian government has been a partner in the Joint Strike Fighter Program from 1997 and a Tier 3 partner for the F-35 Lightning II since 2002. The Canadian Forces plan to buy 65 F-35 with deliveries starting in 2016. The contract is estimated to be worth C$9 billion including aircraft and associated weapons, infrastructure, initial spares, training simulators, contingency funds and project operating costs. Critics said 65 fighters is not enough to fill three complete squadrons and that the F-35 is not suited for arctic patrol since it has a single engine. [Our emphasis]
The Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-18_Hornet
“ [...] just months ago the military received the last of the modernized CF-18 fighters which can keep flying until at least 2017 or 2020″
Montreal Gazette – http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/computers+used+alter+Wikipedia/3335847/story.html
July 31st, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Those Russians love to push people’s buttons, don’t they?
The CF-18s have been pushing 30 years of service. They still are valuable to the Canadian forces and can still be used for arctic patrol for the next 10 years, no problem, but as a support fighter, the CF-18s are outdated. They couldn’t even be used in Afghanistan because of their antiquated communication systems. If we had a Liberal government (or hell, even an NDP governement) Canada would still be looking to replace these planes to keep our military modern and useful and to fulfill our obligations to NORAD, NATO, and the UN.
Canada has already invested $110 million into the research and development of the F-35 planes years ago, so it is wise to use them as they are already pre-designed and suited with Canadian military use in mind, and will serve their uses for decades to come.
And you have to prepare in advance – you can’t just get more jets as you happen to need them.
July 31st, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Also, LOL at the ridiculous “setting off a new cold war” comment in this article. Every country is doing what Canada is doing right now, but I don’t see the author accusing the Dutch or the Turks (or the Australians, or the British, or the French) for ’setting off a new cold war” even though all of these other nations have purchased more jet fighters than Canada.
If anything, Canada’s government isn’t doing enough (which has been typical throughout it’s entire history, regardless of government).
July 31st, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Wikipedia jet edits traced to Alberta
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Wikipedia+edits+traced+Alberta/3346506/story.html
Defence Department information technology specialists haven’t yet been able to determine where the computers being used to alter the Wikipedia site are located, according to department officials in Ottawa.
But using a readily available search engine on the Internet, the Ottawa Citizen has tracked the locations of the three computers to CFB Cold Lake, Alta. The base is expected to be a major centre for the Joint Strike Fighter the Harper government wants to buy.
Nine attempts were made July 20 and 21 to alter the online encyclopedia’s entry on the Joint Strike Fighter, including the removal of any information critical of the Conservative government’s plan to spend at least $16 billion on the new fighter aircraft.
Defence Department computers were also used to insert insults, aimed at Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, into the Wikipedia Joint Strike Fighter page.
Ignatieff has questioned the proposed purchase. Quotes from news articles outlining opposition to the arms deal by University of British Columbia professor Michael Byers, a former NDP candidate, were also removed.
…
Meanwhile, after the Wikipedia JSF site was re-opened for editing by the wider public, new attempts were made to remove information critical of the Harper government’s decision on the fighters.
Those are linked to a downtown Calgary location.
July 31st, 2010 at 8:42 pm
“$110 million”
Against $16 BILLION.
Not even pocket change
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:32 am
@Robert R:
Isn’t the “everybody else is doing it” excuse a tired cliche? There are a lot of reasons not to go along with the purchase, but I didn’t see you or Dred’s comments until yesterday, so here’s what I wrote…
main article:
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/41804
my comment to you and Dreddsnik:
# Robert Says:
August 1st, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Hmm… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate shows different stats.
And Switzerland has mandatory military training for everyone, not just firearm ownership, but training, which means those with weapons are educated not just in their use but in the consequence of their use.
Show me how in history those with weapons have NOT used them for gain compared to those without? Romans? Chinese in the 14th century? England in the 18th century? Persia? Germany in 1939?
Would they have acted the same if they did not have those weapons? I doubt that very much!
Show me where nations building their own arsenal is a good thing? Especially in the Middle East. Look at how much political an religious bullshit exists and now take a look at illegal arms dealing. Is any of this possible without the acquisition of firearms?
Do you honestly believe that because everyone has a gun in their home we’re now all safer?
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Supreme-Court-Strikes-Down-Chicago-Gun-Ban–97377444.html
Weapons in the wrong hands WILL cause more deaths!
Fear will result in their use!
Why do all the nations need these planes? Who are they afraid of? Each other?
So what if Denmark wants to buy 48 or 50 for the UK? Who is their threat? What global threat? You mean people using sub-military weapons against the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and standing resilient? Do you really think they can afford $9 Billion or even a fraction of that for those planes? How many planes have the terrorists actually flown themselves into a country for attack? Do they use fighter planes or do they simply take control over commercial airliners for the sake of creating FEAR in the public?
So propaganda you say, please provide proof of that. Show me how history shows that the more sophisticated our weaponry and the more people with weapons the less-likely wars will result.
There’s one nation requesting 2443 of those fighter jets and conveniently that same nation is currently embroiled in many military conflicts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States
Look at the frequency and then correlate that with military spending, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG
Do you really think that this results in less usage of these weapons? Or is it those with the weapons are less likely to be attacked by those who do not have the weapons?
Please point me to evidence that shows groups with equal powers have not engaged in threats or even conflict? Where is the counter evidence to the propaganda I seem to find?
I am not being sarcastic, I am serious. Find me proof because all I see is the more people with weapons the more likely they will be used.
Chicago’s gun ban seems related to a Supreme Court’s decision relating to The Right To Bear Arms and not “given the violence in the streets, we the court feel more people should have guns.” The violent weekend ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/chicago-gun-ban-axed-afte_n_627773.html ) is a weekend where gangs committed the crime with guns (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/21/chicago-violence-at-least_n_619259.html) but where’s the studies that show the direct correlation? Much like downloading of music files, when shit is free, people flock at the opportunity. Gangs are no different and what you see are gang related deaths, not of civilians but gang wars. More than half. Civilians are caught in the crossfire. But I don’t see any “gangs going after innocents because they don’t have guns to defend themselves” or “gangs used to not shoot people because they too might have guns.” But I am just skimming articles.
Another point is you should not compare organized crime with military actions. Or can you? How many wars between mob families resulted in 10’s of thousands of deaths in a single war? It’s small scale and illustrates what happens when those who have weapons want something others have, whether they have the weapons or not. They use the weapons.
Again please prove me wrong. Real evidence. Show me the error in my thinking from what I have found!