CF-18 Aproach plate

Nark · Post by **Nark** » Thu May 11, 2006 5:25 pm

I just thought I could clear things up a little. VMFA-312 was UDP (deployed overseas for 6 months) here last year. I can talk about them with confidence.

They would pull their F-18C over to a hose and fill up buckets of water with soap. The exact same way I used to clean a navajo when I was in PA. They had civillians wash the birds, which didn't take time away from marines performing maintenace actions. This has nothing to do with our proximity to the ocean, just clean a bird when it gets nasty.

The Marine Corps takes great pride in our appearance. This is presented by our uniforms, our grooming regulations, and even our aircraft.

I bet you won't find ribbons out of place, brass not shined, or an IP (irish pennant=string) hanging off a marines uniform. Can't say that for the other services.

chief · Post by **chief** » Thu May 11, 2006 6:46 pm

linecrew wrote:
chief wrote:Well check out any of their planes. F16's which are parked no where near salt water. Anyways I think he was just mentioning the planes are cleaner and thats a fact.
Sorry..we were talking F/A-18's which are NAVY and Marine aircraft in the US. I didn't realize we weren't all on the same page. I'll shut up then.

np. i was just comparing something in their air force compared to something in our "air force"

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Thu May 11, 2006 7:08 pm

A few minor little details for those that are whining our Hornets aren't as pretty as the Americans'.

When an American F/A 18 gets to the 1000 hour mark; it's retired, used for an Admiral's toy, or just as a parts ferry. When I got out of the CAF 10 years ago; there wasn't a single CF-18 with less than 1000 hours, most had three or four times that.

Canadian Hornets get washed regularly; if memory serves, it took a six person crew three hours to wash one jet. Not slow, not inefficient; just very detailed, and if you didn't do it right, you did it again. If you were still at it at 2 in the morning, that was your problem!

Out of idle curiousity, how many of you have 25 year old cars that are driven hard every day that still look immaculate?

cone · Post by **cone** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:01 am

First of all, Canadian CF-18s get washed all the time. They're not dirty, they're just older than most American jets.

Second, its not an airshow jet there to look pretty. It's a killing machine, and it does that part just fine. The only way it needs to look is "hard to see", and in the air it is.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:04 am

Well ... if you actually counted it up, over the last 25 years, I suspect the CF-188 has flown many more airshow show demonstrations than "combat/killing" missions

cone · Post by **cone** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:11 am

Actually,

There is one jet a year that is the "air show jet" (and it is nice and pretty and painted up for you homos at the airshows). The rest of our jets are being used full time for either training to fight, holding full time alert around Canada, or participating in various armed conflicts such as Gulf War 1 and the Kosovo campaign.

Diddy · Post by **Diddy** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:16 am

I think we're losing sight of two very important things here...

1. We all need a little porn in the cockpit no matter how clean or dirty or cool our planes/killing machines are

2. You're all a bunch of homos, except nark, and maybe cone..

theres my stupid icon

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:43 am

holding full time alert around Canada

Much as I admire the old F-18, the bullshit detector just went off.

I will admit that the CF-188 can be assumed to admirably protect Canadian airspace immediately around Cold Lake and Bagotville, where the remaining Canadian squadrons of CF-188's are based.

The rest of Canadian airspace is wide open.

History Lesson: Canada didn't buy F-18's to patrol our borders, it bought them as a part of our commitment to NATO, to oppose the Soviet threat in Europe, where we based our CF-188 squadrons.

I might mention that our overseas CF-188 squadrons are no more. The Soviets are history, too. So is NATO. But we have some old CF-188 airframes still around - relics of the cold war. Still have some F-5's too. Wanna buy one?

In the meantime, the CF-188 makes plenty of noise at airshows, which is appreciated by the taxpayer, I hope.

no name · Post by **no name** » Fri May 12, 2006 9:56 am

Still have some F-5's too.

F-5's? From where - Mountainview?

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri May 12, 2006 10:42 am

I think so - it was in the paper (again) recently that the gov't was trying to get rid of the rest of the F-5's in storage, and noted that there was "no expertise" left in the military, in the maintenance or operation of these aircraft - they're just a collection of parts at this point, for an obsolete aircraft.

As is usual, whomever purchases these aircraft has to promise our gov't that they won't hurt anyone with them, which explains why they have languished for years and years.

This kind of Monthy Python-esque military bureaucratic silliness reminds me of how our #4 pilot got his CF-104 squadron over in Europe. He was at HQ, and some gov't gnome was concerned that it might get out that ex-Canadian F-86's were in Pakistan, which was bad news because the Pakistanis might use them to hurt someone, which simply isn't done by Canadians, or with Canadian hardware.

So, pressured by the gnome, our #4 signed off that there were no Sabres in Pakistan, which pleased the gov't gnome. However the gov't gnome was unaware that aircraft need maintenance, and a little while later, the gnome was back at #4's desk, asking him to sign off a shipload of spare F-86 parts, going to Pakistan.

Our #4 said that in good conscience, he couldn't sign off on the F-86 parts export, because the Canadian gov't had said that there were no ex-Canadian Sabres in Pakistan, and if there are no Sabres there, why would they need spare parts?

This went on a while, and finally the gov't gnomes asked him what it would take for him to sign off on the export of the F-86 parts. Our #4 replied, "Out of HQ and a CF-104 squadron".

And that, my friends, is the true story of how our #4 got his CF-104 squadron. There's really no life like it.

Diddy · Post by **Diddy** » Fri May 12, 2006 12:57 pm

Much as I admire the old F-18, the bullshit detector just went off.

Dude, without getting terribly specific in a public place... CF-18s are involved in various sovereignty operations all throughout Canada, 24/7.

Op Noble Eagle has been ongoing since 9/11, and invovles operating our Hornets out of more than just two places...

But you're right.. they are noisey.. noise is cool.. the sound of freedom

... · Post by **...** » Fri May 12, 2006 1:54 pm

cone wrote:Actually,

There is one jet a year that is the "air show jet" (and it is nice and pretty and painted up for you homos at the airshows ). The rest of our jets are being used full time for either training to fight, holding full time alert around Canada, or participating in various armed conflicts such as Gulf War 1 and the Kosovo campaign.

Diddy wrote:I think we're losing sight of two very important things here...

1. We all need a little porn in the cockpit no matter how clean or dirty or cool our planes/killing machines are

2. You're all a bunch of homos, except nark, and maybe cone..

...ahem...ummm the word 'Homo" has been used twice by two different people that appear to be in our Armed Forces.

Question, is the word homo always associated with non military Canadian civilians? Is it the perception that we are all homo's, or just the cool word now a days with you folk? Kinda like when the US invades a country and they use some derogotory word for the civilians of that counrty like in Rowanda-Skinnies, Vietman-gooks, Japan-riceballs, Anywhere in Latin America-Wetbacks.

If this is the case...I would prefer we try and change that should we ever get invaded by another country. I'd hate to see us being called homo's.

"I've got 4 homo's inbound...off 'em!!"

This post was not meant to disrespect the service you are doing for our country...A good friend of mine is in harms way at the moment over in one of those sand piles out east.

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Fri May 12, 2006 3:11 pm

I was told at one time in my life that veneer means shit.

GO CANADA!

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:47 pm

edit - nevermind....

monkeyspankmasterflex · Sat May 13, 2006 10:47 am

CF-18s are involved in various sovereignty operations all throughout Canada, 24/7.

Exactly, remember the "No Golf-zone" enforcement in YZF a couple of years back or when they went toe-to-toe with the weather balloon and almost won.

Don't forget that those "airshow homos" sign your paychecks Champ.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 40618.html

http://arb.nzcer.org.nz/nzcer3/ENGLISH/ ... WL3035.htm

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:20 pm

monkeyspankmasterflex wrote:
CF-18s are involved in various sovereignty operations all throughout Canada, 24/7.
Exactly, remember the "No Golf-zone" enforcement in YZF a couple of years back or when they went toe-to-toe with the weather balloon and almost won.

Don't forget that those "airshow homos" sign your paychecks Champ.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 40618.html

http://arb.nzcer.org.nz/nzcer3/ENGLISH/ ... WL3035.htm

From that second link:

"Two Canadian CF-18 fighter pilots fired more than 1000 machinegun rounds at the balloon over Newfoundland on Thursday but failed to bring it down.
Canadian military spokesman Lieutenant Steve Willis defended their effort, saying that Canadian CF-18 pilots had won the Top Gun trophy in the United States last year as the world's best fighter pilots, but that hitting a comparatively stationary target from supersonic speed was not easy."

Obviously someone's got it wrong here. Why the f**k would they be supersonic while trying to hit it? Regardless though, 1000 rounds and they didn't bring it down?? I hope that stat is incorrect as well.

Av100LL · Post by **Av100LL** » Sat May 13, 2006 1:56 pm

I am Birddog wrote:
...ahem...ummm the word 'Homo" has been used twice by two different people that appear to be in our Armed Forces.

I happen to be a service member, and Im offended.

i prefer the terms as follows: Cockjaws, Fuckpot, Wankstick, brokeback troopaloop, all fucked up like a soup sandwich and "you, private, are a sun fucked onion"
Cunt, Dirtbag, and Shitpump will also suffice

Pte Dixon

TheCheez · Post by **TheCheez** » Sat May 13, 2006 10:27 pm

Don't forget that those "airshow homos" sign your paychecks Champ.

You've got about as much say in military pay, personnel and ops as you do with Exxon every time you fill up there. Sure you can head over to Shell or Chevron or wherever else but joe schmoe running the drill rig still isn't gonna care what you think.

Being a taxpayer doesn't give you any authority over public servants, it gives you the privilege of living in Canada and your 1 vote every 4 years.

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Sat May 13, 2006 10:40 pm

Diddy wrote:I think we're losing sight of two very important things here...

1. We all need a little porn in the cockpit no matter how clean or dirty or cool our planes/killing machines are

2. You're all a bunch of homos, except nark, and maybe cone..

theres my stupid icon

Someone's got some internet rage issues to work out.

I recommend this guy.

-istp

TG · Post by TG » Sat May 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Don't forget that those "airshow homos" sign your paychecks Champ.

And I also believe the military beg them to buy some new toys.

monkeyspankmasterflex · Sun May 14, 2006 6:25 am

You've got about as much say in military pay, personnel and ops as you do with Exxon every time you fill up there.

You haven't been in the mil very long have you? Everytime someone farts in the CF there's a public affairs officer nearby making sure it don't stink. Over the last 10 yrs the CF has enjoyed a favourable public image, for the decade prior to that the CF was an obvious choice for budget cuts. Ask some sr guys about their pay freeze through the 90's. Enjoy public support for Defense spending while it lasts and try not to bite the hand that feeds you.

32a · Post by **32a** » Sun May 14, 2006 9:14 am

Yes, we all know the real story. The public elects the government who controls the military. Thus, indirectly, the public is the CF's boss.

Interestingly, this also makes the public responsible for state of the military, its missions, and its capabilities. No one need wonder what that report card looks like.

This thread has reached an ugly albeit still entertaining twist. The baiting techniques of some has been finessed to an awesome level, however, the BS still prevails. Hope this exchange won't deteriorate any further as a sparring match between the public and the CF. We should all know our duties and responsibilities as citizens and as soldiers. And ultimately, there is no guarantee any author is who they claim to be.

Doing the operational job is what the CF is paid for. Showing off our stuff at airshows is always fun. Getting paid to have fun makes it all that much more worthwhile.

monkeyspankmasterflex · Sun May 14, 2006 10:41 am

Interestingly, this also makes the public responsible for state of the military, its missions, and its capabilities. No one need wonder what that report card looks like.

Completely agree. I hope the Cdn public wants a fully funded military. I was just trying to suggest that calling people homos is not the best means to that end.