Derek 2.0

That's odd, I heard the same, that some felt it as far as the Gulf Islands......asked the wife and she didn't feel it either, and we're closer to Tofino then the Gulf Islands......I guess nobody was hurt is the main thing......

Was driving, didn't feel a thing.......any Tsunami warnings?

Ahhh no..........You're confusing high capacity bombs with the "blockbuster's" size (which was a HC bomb)........The capacity of the bomb is a ratio between the explosives carried and the steel bomb casing not the overall weight of the bomb....... There were lower capacity/general purpose bombs with a ~25/75 ratio of explosives to casing, which created lots of steel shrapnel, perfect for anti personal, parked aircraft, fuel tanks etc.........then there were medium capacity, the standard for area bombing by both the USAAF and Bomber Command, which used a ratio of ~50/50 explosive to casing, used against buildings, railroads, bridges, factories etc...... Then there were your mentioned HC bombs, in varying sizes used by both the British and Americans (against Japan), with HC bombs, the explosive to casing ratio was ~75/25% (or better). When used against cities in conjunction with incendiaries, the HC bombs would often be retarded with a parachute and ground proximity fuse to create an air burst to blow-out windows, stucco, roofing tiles and paper walls (in Japan), hence the creation of "fuel" for the follow-on incendiaries......these combination attacks though proved ineffective against steel bar concrete buildings and is why the follow on bomber waves carried medium capacity bombs.........So to defuse (pun intended) your lame attempt, MC HE very much so played a part in flatting cities, and no, high capacity bombs and incendiaries are the least effective against concrete buildings.......like what is found in a modern city like Seoul But hey, I appreciate you trying to teach me that of what I already know.......... In unison? Quickly? Saturating an area? For a minute, I thought you were describing an artillery barrage........ Reread the passage you quoted of mine...............And your description of the South ruling the "open ground" and the North having a large front to defend, with poorly equipped forces sounds awfully familiar......almost like it happened once before....maybe 60 sum years ago.......Will the South Korean forces be home by Christmas? Sure and what happened to the Germans when confronted with a larger force, comprised of poorly equipped/organized soldiers? You better pull-up your socks if you ever want to see armchair corporal......... I would assume because being on the receiving end of American firepower would suck.......Alas, in your scenario, the Americans are no longer there......... Run? Why? The North Koreans have a zillion mines planted on their side of the DMZ............ The North doesn't need to engage both at the same.......by the time the South Koreans have mobilized their army/reserves, Seoul will be a parking lot.......remember, the South Koreans no longer have a trip-wire force of an entire modern, well trained, combat experienced American field army and air force........ Right, so the Americans are just handy to have around........and instead of increasing the size and scope of their own military, the South Koreans can just expect a solid from those pesky Americans that spend sooooo much money on defense instead of social programs......... So why do the Americans subsidize the defense of South Korea??????

I'm not dodging your failed point at all......B17s, B-24s, Lancasters and the Halifax didn't drop massive demolition bombs on soft targets like cities. Likewise, a bomb stick comprised of 100lbs, 250lbs and 500lbs bombs didn't land in higher concentrations then repeat artillery fire, with bombs being strewn across the target area, which in the case of area bombing could be measured over square miles........... That is weak........in mobile warfare, hardened defenses are either subjected to significant in-direct fire first or bypassed all together......of course that isn't applicable with counter battery fire between a superior in size dug in force versus a smaller force with little to no protection You can criticize Global security all you like, but it is far better then your cited "sources".... But said garbage still has to be destroyed by the South........ The North Koreans have comparable size sp artillery to the South's, none the less, I would assume they would use unguided rockets to country battery South Korean guns........ But, now that you're providing odds on South Korea being able to defeat nuclear armed North Korea on their own.........why are the Americans still there? If they're not needed in the defense of South Korea, why haven't the Americans brought their forces home? Thinks of all the money that could be spent on food stamps!!!!

So in the event of multiple engine failures, could said hydraulic pumps also be air driven from the windmilling turbines?

Right......but they don't have a nuclear arsenal, were as the North does. Sure I do........do you? How many tons of explosives were used to level Dresden with a weeks long bombing campaign by the Allies? (its a rhetorical question, as I already know and contrasted with what Western intelligence experts expect the North Koreans could deliver on Seoul with several hours of artillery bombardment...) You realize, the North Koreans have been preparing artillery positions for decades........ You're speaking about the South Koreans right? The same South Koreans who's army is comprised mostly of 70s era western technology? Fighting a superior force of North Koreans, comprised mostly of 70s era Soviet and Chinese technology in hardened positions? You understand for the South Koreans to counter-battery the North, they will have to position themselves in-range of far more North Korean guns right?

Your article is factually wrong........the F-35A's gun (and the gun pod for the B and C) will be integrated with the Block 3F software in Spring-Summer of 2017........unlike current types that use for air-to-air mode the aircraft's radar and avionics to process several dozen calculations based on both the aircraft/targets range, speed, deflection etc, then a ballistic computer for air-to-ground, the F-35 will incorporate both modes into its avionics aided by the aircraft's DAS.........making the F-35's guns, both mounted and podded, far more accurate then current types.......

I agree......watching CBC news coverage, they have refused, but I've heard the Sun Media chain has/is as a sign of support..

I would assume with the 747, based on its similar vintage as a C-5, and the size of it engines, windmilling an engine would generate enough electrical power to sustain the hydraulics......... Ironically enough, a week before the Air Asia crash, in a conversation with a First Air 737 pilot on fixed wing versus rotary in-flight emergency procedures in the Arctic, I learned that the flight controls in a 737 can be operated without hydraulic pressure, with basic cabin electrical requirements being provided by batteries.......I would assume this not to be so with newer Airbus designs......

Long lead items for the Super Hornet would need to be ordered late this Spring or early Summer to prevent Boeing from closing the production line in St Louis the following year.......already, Boeing has stopped production of the baseline Super Hornet, finishing the remaining orders of the Growlers for the USN........ There will be no Canadian Super Hornet, no mater how hard you wish it to be so.........

With Sabres? Sure, and we'll get to pay for it...... F-35 production will wind down in the later 2030s.....several decades after the Super Hornet production. The F-35 will still be supported, decades after production, to maintain the users various fleets through to retirement..........the Super Hornet will be razor blades, garbage cans, gate guards and museum pieces..........

Boeing isn't upgrading the Super Hornet.........because their largest customer isn't interested. The F-35A is already under $100 million per aircraft......as evident by the latest signed contract.

No, the "upgrade package" has not and will not be funded by the US Government.......likewise, once the Super Hornet is retired in the 2030s, Canada would be the sole operator for an additional two decades, requiring Canada to pay for any lifetime upgrades on our own......unlike currently, where Canada (and other nations) are able to piggyback onto fleet upgrades paid for by the US Government......... Operating the Super Hornet in the 2050s, would be akin to the RCAF operating these: in the present day...........

The Super Hornet is only in service with the USN and RAAF......and will cease production within the next several years.

It was/is a stop-gap, after the Avenger II was cancelled by the first Bush administration, to replace the A-6E, KA-6D and the EA-6B........later, it also replaced the F-14........Of which, the Super Hornet falls short in both range and ordnance when contrasted with the aircraft it replaced...

So once attacked, the South Koreans would just put together a nuclear arsenal...........but they don't need to, because they fall under the American nuclear umbrella........I thought you said the South Koreans could take care of themselves? What is the number of artillery pieces able hit Seoul, from behind the DMZ? And how do you know that 25% of the North's artillery shells are duds..........My god, you seem better informed than Western intelligence services!!! I never suggested the North could "carpet bomb" Seoul.......they don't need too. During the Second World, a single B-17 could drop on a Germany city upwards of 10000 lbs of HE bombs, versus a typical artillery piece, with a sustained rate of fire of anywhere between 30-50 rounds an hour.......Now using the low end estimate of 30 rounds per hour, and the weight of a NATO 155mm shell (I don't know the weight or size of North Korean artillery) ~80 lbs we have: 30 x 80 lbs = 2400 lbs of ordinance an hour Back to the B-17, the round trip from Southern England to Germany would take ~4-5hrs, to drop ~10000 lbs of HE explosives in one day.............Our 155mm artillery piece can deliver in ~4-5 hours ~9600-12000 lbs of HE explosives in the same time period...........Even if you include a night attack from a RAF Halifax or Lancaster dropping an equal amount of explosives in the same 24hr period, that is ~20000 lbs of explosives from two bombers......the same, single artillery piece need only 8-10 hours of the day of sustained fire to equal that total........ How do you know the North Koreans are incapable of maintaining a sustained bombardment for weeks, if not months? Likewise, what do South Koreans have, in their arsenal capable of counter-battery fire against North Korean artillery, buried in hardened positions, likewise, how does unprepared South Korean artillery defend against counter-battery fire from the North? There is some math, with work shown, above........care to refute it?

Define a "defense expert"........well illustrating where I have been factually wrong........With that said, there has been no bruised ego, fore I certainly consider the source and have been called far worse, by far, far better. So now you're suggesting the South Koreans, after being attacked by the North, would develop their own nuclear weapons program.........astounding!!!!! The North could very well flatten Seoul with a sustained bombardment, none the less, within the opening hours, the devastation on the civilian population of Seoul would be catastrophic......this is not the "bluster" of the North Koreans, or the MSM, but the South Korean Government's (likewise USFK) opinion...... I, unlike yourself do have a clue......by simply examining the results of the Allies aerial bombing of German and Japanese cities, then contrasting with the sustained firepower the North is capable of delivering through both tube and rocket artillery, combined with IRBMs.......and of course, the South Korean's ability to defend against such threats... Overestimate the accuracy? You understand the city of Seoul is not mobile and in a rather well known location....as such, has been "bracketed" for more than half a century by the North Korean army........... You have now demonstrated not only your lack of understanding of this topic, but grade school trigonometry.....

I would assume by providing electrical power to pumps/actuators for the aircraft's hydraulics? Also, with regards to the RAT, on civilian airliners, is it possible and/or standard to generate enough electrical power with a "feathered" turbine in an emergency? I know it was possible for older military aircraft like the Galaxy and Starlifters, but no longer sufficient with more modern fly-by-wire types like a Globemaster III with larger hotel loads. I agree 100%.

Neither test pilots, and now operational military pilots, nor the US armed services have confirmed anything that you "stand beside", which is rooted in several, baseless opinions, often repeated in the media.........stand beside it all you like, but you're wrong.

The latest LRIP contract signed several months ago saw the per plane contract price under $100 million...... Not any test pilot that has flown it........and with the aircraft's DAS, the F-35 has greater visibility then any current fighter... The engine issue were resolved at the end of last Summer.......likewise, your cited fuel issue, isn't an issue with the aircraft's engines, as the F-35 uses the fuel itself as a heat sink to reduce the aircraft's IR return......of course said issue was "solved" by painting the airfield bowsers with thermal paint...... And you're wrong here too.......the F-35A, like our Hornets, has both a drag chute and arresting gear.. The Americans, Norwegians and Danes have been operating single engine F-16s in the Arctic since the 70s....to be replaced by single engine F-35s....... Not pilots that have flown it, of which (of what they can release) have made it clear that the F-35 is the equal or better then both the Hornet and Falcon in terms of maneuverability........ You're talking out of your arse.....any "experts" with actual knowledge of the aircraft's stealth performance that spoke openly about the F-35 would be in a United States Federal Prison..... The program has bipartisan support...... The "Super-duper Hornet" has not been funded by DoD and will cease production in several years, and then start being retired by both the USN and RAAF in the early 2030s....... Don't bother......its been past upon by other nations for a reason.... Both the Hornet/Super Hornet and Rafale faced "issues" like the F-35 well in development, and in the case of the Rafale, is still undergoing "development" to make the design relevant into the next decade........and no, we don't already know the Super Hornet, as it has a different (larger) airframe, different engines, avionics and radar as our current Hornets....... Perhaps a tad more "research" is needed on your part, but thanks for coming out.

And like in the other thread(s), there is a direct correlation between your lack of understanding of a given topic and your rate of insults hurled at those that do........ Nukes would end who? The North? You understand the South does not have the ability to launch a counter-strike right? As to your implication that North Korean artillery isn't a threat (By all means insult me or explain how your opinion is counter to that of the South Koreans), why are all South Korean and US facilities hardened, to an extent greater then West Germany during the Cold War, or far enough South to be out of range of North Korean artillery? edit to add for laughs:........blind firing? You think the North Koreans incapable of deploying FOO teams across the DMZ with a map case and radio? Christ, they were doing that on M*A*S*H..........

Aside from the reliability of said statistics, it ignores the fact that Chinese defense industries (like the Soviets) are state owned and operated by the military.........likewise, such areas as research and development..... Centralized economy says it all.........

Indeed, and its selection is made more pronounced by its inherent force multiplying attributes.......all areas the ROKAF currently does not have.

The artillery is based in bunkers and tunnels that the United States would be hard-pressed to contend against, likewise an air defense network that would make the ROKAF irrelevant.........

And that is demonstration of your total failure to understand the subject.......... Currently the United States navy, as mentioned, would be hard pressed to contend with a war with Iran, let alone two Irans. This is made obvious by the force wide reductions in both readiness and actual ships, which translates into the USN barely being able to replicate a Operation Earnest Will/Praying Mantis without pooling resources from all of its sub unit commands, to say nothing of fighting an actual war with Iran.........and you feel they could simply fight two Irans well maintaining its other commitments? You're out to lunch..... The North Koreans already have the ability to flatten Seoul, from behind the DMZ, with conventional tube and rocket artillery secured in bunkers and tunnels.....then of course the North has the NBC option. The South does not.