SAR_YQQ wrote:
Are you sure we don't have one already? Maybe the CF has already established an austere airstrip somewhere and just forgot to INFO you on the memo.
Well actually I sort of received the memo:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/8wing/ ... 38&id=1142
No mention is made here of the C-17 but look at the date: May 25 2006. Just when the C-17 SOR was being written in haste to prepare the C-17 ACAN. We need a special airstrip in Trenton for CC-130s after having operated the type there for over 40 years without it. Coincidence? Only if Santa Claus really exists. I am certain that if I was to obtain the engineering requirements for that airstrip under an Access to Information request, "C-17" would be all over it. But I won't bother. I already know...
Of course, the CF could not at the time admit they were in fact building a C-17 "austere airstrip" when Gordon O'Connor was still telling everyone that no decision had been made about purchasing the C-17.
But you missed the whole point of my post. There are hundreds of austere runways in Canada. Hundreds.
If one has to build specially-made austere airstrips to accommodate the C-17, and these are the only un-surfaced airstrips that can accommodate that aircraft, can they still be considered austere? One of the first C-17 pilots to land at Bradshaw, Australia, claimed it was the best un-surfaced runway he had ever seen, and I believe him.
So if these "austere" airstrips are not really austere but just perfectly engineered airstrips disguised as such by having no asphalt and concrete on top, can this aircraft still be considered one that can land on "austere" airstrips since it never does and never will do? (unless of course a grader and steam-roller are standing by at the landing zone to fix the huge ruts it will create when it does, which they do in remote Afghanistan but not in remote Canada)
This being said, I'll let you guys enjoy this "technical marvel" in peace from now on. I know my ideas are not popular but a popularity contest was not my goal. It was to try to open a few eyes to what is really going on here.
I love aircraft more than a lot of people on this Forum. It started with military aircraft. When I was 12, could recognize most WW-II aircraft. I have collections of military aircraft books. I grew up reading Buck-Danny, a comic series Anglos have never hear of.
http://www.aeroplanete.net/mot.php3?id_mot=6
As a kid, I spent three years overseas living on a US Army base. At 11, I could by sound tell the difference between a Cobra Helicopter and a UH-1. At 10 I hounded my father to take me see "Tora Tora Tora" (1971). I was an Air traffic controller for a few years. I soloed at age 19, 27 years ago, and dedicated my life to flying and aviation. I flew over 40 aircraft types and now have upwards of 12,000 hours. I love aircraft with passion, but my love and appreciation of aircraft is not clouded by prejudice or political reasons whose origins are in the Cold War, a Cold war that has been over for 16 years now
(At the outset of the Pacific war, the American thought the Mitsubishi "Zero" was a piece of sh#t and that Japanese pilots all wore think glasses and could not fly fighters. They also thought their "Brewster Buffalos" were the best fighters in the world until the japs proved them wrong when no Brewster pilot ever came home to tell about his encounters with the nimble "Zero")
I do not think an aircraft has to be "Kosher" to be flown by myself, let alone by CF personnel. Prejudice has no busines in aviation.
I am not against the military or spending money on the military. I had several close relatives in the military. Some went to war. On the contrary, I am for Canada's sovereignty and independence and by independence, I also mean indepedence from a disastrous US Foreign Policy. I am a federalist. I don't think Quebec deserves a bigger share of any contract like some accused me of, just because I am a francophone living in Quebec.
I am not Anti-American. I am againts the Neo-Con US Foreign Policy, which is
not a reflection of what the American people or the United States stand for. Canada should in now way be associated with that foreign policy.
This idea that the US is "our friends" is true as a neighbour, as a trading partner, as fellow North Americans.
It is not true as when they are illegal agressors in Iraq to steal that country's oil. It is not true when they will be agressors in Iran. It is not true as agressors against Russia and we must distance ourselves from all that in no uncertain manner.
We should buy and operate what is required by a modern army and cannot be leased (like helicopter gunships, and electronic warfare capability) and stick to leasing what can be leased (like transport ships and transport aircraft that are seldom needed) or let NATO pool and buy and operate those seldom needed items.
The C-17 was an unnecessary Vanity purchase for the military.
It was playing lap poodle to Washington for the Conservative government.
Nothing more. This being said, enjoy the technology...
