Russia Approaching Canadian Airspace!

[wyly]

There really should not be a debate about it. If the North West Passage opens up, which is claimed to be Canadian Sovereign territory, then we need to be able to protect that. We have the second largest land mass for a country on the planet with a population that ranks #36. We are already at a disatvatage because of our small population for the size Canada is. How do you expect to even exercise any means of protecting Canadian soil with the even the current military.

The world is going to change a lot in the next 20-30 years. Would you rather be prepared for it? I am a kind of a pacifist myself, but I do understand the need to at least have a standing military to protect what we claim is ours. If we can't do that, then what is the point of even having a military?

as it is now the USA only informs us when it is going to send a ship through the NWP they don't ask permission or get clearance to do so the only way to assert our sovereignty is that on the first occasion a questionable ship such as a freighter or oil tanker regardless of nationality attempts to enter the NWP without permission we have a coast guard ship block access and be back it up with military force...until that happens we will not be taken seriously and will have given up sovereignty to our waterways...

we don't need a huge military to do this just the politcal will and the balls to do it, not even the US is going to come to blows with it's prime ally over this...

[DogOnPorch]

So all Canada needs is a pit and a salvage crew to have a nuclear bomb?

The weapon aboard the B-36 was an unpitted Mk IV Fatman type device. It still had high explosive lenses, though...which did explode...so you're only ever going to find bits and chunks.

http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/BC/broken_arrow.htm

But it illustrates the problem of nuclear armed aircraft crashing deep into Canada's wilderness. It took years to reach the crash-site.

[Army Guy]

the same reason the USA does it, navigation training, no landmarks at day, at night...our Navy has no need to leave our costal waters yet they go on long range excerises why? practise...

Like i said before Russia can do this training any where all one has to do is check the map and see how large russia is, so why risk provoking North America...Our Navy does do long range exericise because of our defense agreements we have enter in to, any training any military does it does it for a reason, in this case it's to provoke a response.

,despite any training we do we are insignifcant... our airforce could be swept aside buy the Russians in first day of action if they should so wish...a dozen cruise missile hits on our paltry airbases and our f-18 response is eliminated without the loss of a single russian plane.

If it was only that easy, then i guess it's time to upgrade to the F-35 then since our current F-18 force is ineffective...

which confirms they're training runs..

Does'nt confirm anything, except that any and all such flights are intercepted....

you're pretty confident the Russians are convinced there wouldn't be a nuclear response,

Would you be poking a grizzly bear in the eye with a stick if you knew it would not attack....

the premiss by everyone here is these old Russian bombers are armed with Nukes and they're going to use them in a sneak attack to steal our ice flows DogOnPorch claims they have nukes on board,

I presonally don't know what they have on board....Can't say for sure, i bet they are not full of candy and teddy bears....

for what possible reason would the Russians send old planes on their own to spy on ice flows while armed with nukes.

You keep saying they are old, so is the herc design, but they have many newer versions flying just becuase they have props does not make they useless...."Training", you train as you fight...and you fight as you train....

it's absurd....our own Deparment of Defence sees no threats to our arctic, our airforce intercepting russian planes is a training excersise just as the russians conducting their own...

Thats not what DND said it said these types of missions are routine....it did not say they are not a threat....

the Russians are such a threat that we have joint military excersises with them

It's an anti terrorist Ex , handing over a target at the edge of thier airspace....not a big deal....when was the last time NATO ground troops exericised along side of their Russian comrads....or NATO ships EX along side Russian....does not happen all to often, Yes we have been invited to observe an exericise, but very rarely do work and share info on how we work , share our tactics...despite our cooperation Russia is not listed on the friendly list....

[DogOnPorch]

Army Guy: I presonally don't know what they have on board....Can't say for sure, i bet they are not full of candy and teddy bears....

Agreement. Russia doesn't send out its aircraft unarmed anymore than Canada and the US does. Interesting, though, that some folks would think they would. The KH-55 is like a Tomahawk cruise missile and is pretty much the standard. Like the Tomahawk, it can be nuclear or conventional. Other munitions onboard might include ASW weapons and the like depending on the mission. The same goes for the Tu-160.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AgOjKGroWg

This isn't meant to sensationalize anything...but it is indeed possible that nuclear cruise missiles are carried. It was SOP during the Cold War era to be armed to the teeth. One got used to being an atomic target back then. Not much has really changed in this respect. I suppose people today just don't want to think too much about it much like Iran getting the Bomb.

Edited August 27, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bloodyminded]

I suppose people today just don't want to think too much about it much like Iran getting the Bomb.

Yes, because that issue has been utterly ignored by the media, and no one's heard about it.

???

[DogOnPorch]

Yes, because that issue has been utterly ignored by the media, and no one's heard about it.

???

I think that people are, in general, woefully ignorant of atomic weapons...just a bigger firecracker. You might have a clue or two about them and how they function...that's actually quite rare.

[wyly]

Like i said before Russia can do this training any where all one has to do is check the map and see how large russia is, so why risk provoking North America...Our Navy does do long range exericise because of our defense agreements we have enter in to, any training any military does it does it for a reason, in this case it's to provoke a response.

and our long range exercises don't provoke a reaction?

Does'nt confirm anything, except that any and all such flights are intercepted....

each interception being a training run in itself... routine stuff until the tories need a photo op then it's "the Russkies are coming! rally behind der Leader he will protect us"

Would you be poking a grizzly bear in the eye with a stick if you knew it would not attack....

pure jingoistic paranoia...the Russians could roll over any of it's little neighbours with impunity and no fear of a wider confrontation and yet it doesn't...yet some how the tories and right wing are convinced they'll attack us the first time we don't intercept a routine training flight...

If it was only that easy, then i guess it's time to upgrade to the F-35 then since our current F-18 force is ineffective...

and the cruise missiles would make short work of the F35 bases as well...100 million dollar planes eliminated with relatively inexpensive cruise missiles on the first day of battle...

You keep saying they are old, so is the herc design, but they have many newer versions flying just becuase they have props does not make they useless...."Training", you train as you fight...and you fight as you train....just as canadian and american and military trainees all over the world do, they train on 2nd rate equipment...

Thats not what DND said it said these types of missions are routine....it did not say they are not a threat....

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, in a just-released Arctic policy statement, makes it clear that Canada does not “anticipate any military challenges in the Arctic.”

It's an anti terrorist Ex , handing over a target at the edge of thier airspace....not a big deal....when was the last time NATO ground troops exericised along side of their Russian comrads....or NATO ships EX along side Russian....does not happen all to often, Yes we have been invited to observe an exericise, but very rarely do work and share info on how we work , share our tactics...despite our cooperation Russia is not listed on the friendly list....

you can choose to dwell in the past or you can move on be friends you probably aren't aware the cold war ended some time ago...it takes two to feud, and really what's the feud about? can you identify the points of this imaginary conflict for us?

The Russians, Americans, Norway, Denmark and Canada have all agreed to abide a 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratified by 151 countries. The UN will mediate the resource claims by the five countries with arctic claims...

[DogOnPorch]

you can choose to dwell in the past or you can move on be friends you probably aren't aware the cold war ended some time ago...it takes two to feud, and really what's the feud about? can you identify the points of this imaginary conflict for us?

Isn't this statement better directed towards the Russians?

[PIK]

nor do they need to, Canada has no top secret programs to spy on...plus they can easily do it with in our borders using private planes or driving right up to any sight they please, we're an open book with nothing to hide

Resolute Bay is well out of the range of any spy plane in international air space, a tanker refueling excersise and a mock oil spill, ya really top secret stuff....

we're going to be taken out by a surprise attack with two old bombers for what reason???? tell us honestly you believe the Russians would enter a MAD situation for what resources they already have more of than we do?

How do you know canada does not have top secret programs............if they are top secret programs? lol

[PIK]

Funny thing ,back when chretien was PM we were always hearing about the bombers taking a peek up north ,but when it happens when harper is PM ,the left make a big deal out of it being reported. You guys are sooooo funny.

[YEGmann]

Old design, pardon: 1954 was its first flight. The airframe is still essentially a very modified Tu-4 Bull (B-29). As aircraft go, I'm a huge fan. Saw the airliner version once (Tu-114). Still waiting to see a real one up close.

You definitely have no idea what you are talking about. You just repeat stereotypes. Russia has written off its old Bears of "1954 design. Long time ago.

These ones - Tu-95MS - are a completely new design.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95

"Tu-95MS/Tu-95MS6/Tu-95MS16:– Completely new cruise missile carrier platform based on the Tu-142 airframe. This variant became the launch platform of the Raduga Kh-55 cruise missile. Known to NATO as the Bear-H and was referred to by the U.S. military as a Tu-142 for some time in the 1980s before its true designation became known."

Steady series production started in 1983 and ended in 1992. You can compare to American B-52H and our CF-18.

Presenting Russian bombers as flying rusty buckets of bolts is at least a mistake. I see this as a liberal's attempt to somehow embarass the government. Worse, it is directed to prevent buying really new F-35. Not for rational reasons, just because it is the conservative government who wants to provide our soldiers with modern weapons.

[DogOnPorch]

You definitely have no idea what you are talking about. You just repeat stereotypes. Russia has written off its old Bears of "1954 design. Long time ago.

These ones - Tu-95MS - are a completely new design.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95

"Tu-95MS/Tu-95MS6/Tu-95MS16:– Completely new cruise missile carrier platform based on the Tu-142 airframe. This variant became the launch platform of the Raduga Kh-55 cruise missile. Known to NATO as the Bear-H and was referred to by the U.S. military as a Tu-142 for some time in the 1980s before its true designation became known."

Steady series production started in 1983 and ended in 1992. You can compare to American B-52H and our CF-18.

Presenting Russian bombers as flying rusty buckets of bolts is at least a mistake. I see this as a liberal's attempt to somehow embarass the government. Worse, it is directed to prevent buying really new F-35. Not for rational reasons, just because it is the conservative government who wants to provide our soldiers with modern weapons.

Uhhh...the Tu-142 is the naval recon Bear...it's airframe a highly modified Tu-4 Bull....which is a copy of the B-29.

As for the Tu-114...it looks like so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-114

DOP voting Liberal now? They'll indeed be surprised.

[capricorn]

Funny thing ,back when chretien was PM we were always hearing about the bombers taking a peek up north ,but when it happens when harper is PM ,the left make a big deal out of it being reported. You guys are sooooo funny.

The good news is, Ignatieff has outgrown his fear of Russian aircraft.

The Liberal leader told reporters he laughed when the prime minister talked about Russian aircraft being chased away by Canadian military planes on Tuesday.

Ignatieff says people have tried to make him afraid of the Russian bear ever since his childhood, because he's partly Russian.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100827/ignatieff-criticizes-harper-photo-op-100827/

[YEGmann]

Uhhh...the Tu-142 is the naval recon Bear...it's airframe a highly modified Tu-4 Bull....which is a copy of the B-29.

You either never saw a Tu-4/B-29 or you have no idea what an airframe is.

For you, there is a saying in aircraft design "An airplane is its wing".

My point is Russians have modern, brand new aircraft in their airforce. Fortunately, not many of them. To counter them we need modern and new aircraft too. Preferrebly, better than theirs.

[DogOnPorch]

lol...I've flown in a B-29.

[William Ashley]

You either never saw a Tu-4/B-29 or you have no idea what an airframe is.

For you, there is a saying in aircraft design "An airplane is its wing".

My point is Russians have modern, brand new aircraft in their airforce. Fortunately, not many of them. To counter them we need modern and new aircraft too. Preferrebly, better than theirs.

This is good in premise but it is the US government VIA taxes that benefits from procurement - if Canadians purchased aircraft parts supplied and produced in Canada, able to be restocked, and resupplied in Canada, and saw Canadian Comapnies taxed from the many billion dollar purchases, it would be much more reasonable - currently only a small fraction of those funds are removed, and the price of the unit skyrocketed dramatically since the original pricing proposals and the bidding on the contract - basically it won a contract it hasn't met its proposal for due to cost overruns.

The Canadian purchases are cost 30% or more than the US purchases due to tax offsets -- and the Canadian purchases directly fund the US government - that is NOT fair.

BTW I am very neutral in this regard the plane is awsome, looks great, performs well, but only buying them is an error IMO - also there are some issues with "fairness" of costing eg. overall cost to Canada is more than the US cost - why buy US equipment for 30% more than it would cost to buy canadian equipment - it is a tragic flaw. Israel who bought 20 of these has gotten billions in subsidies from the US government - yet where are Canadian subsidies to buy US equipment? Hopefully you see the problem.

While the NORAD thing is a little offset - being someone who has been victimized by the US I don't fully trust their sincerity when dealing with Canadians nor respecting them or providing them equal rights to Americans - so I don't think just giving them money is completely in Canadian interests - especially when the tables are titled in their favour at the cost of Canadians. I don't have total trust in the USA, they have wronged me personally and wouldn't be suprised if they wronged someone else. Canada has a lot to potentially benefit from allying with the US - but it is unfortunate when we are paying them for their military equipment that is for every 3 we buy they get one free. That is 30 or so FREE F35's for the US government at the cost of the Canadian taxpayer. Meanwhile through subsidies Israel is getting 20 free F35's.

"Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to Israel, reaching $3 billion a year by FY2012"

See this problem here?

Edited August 28, 2010 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

See this problem here?

Nope....your personal beef with the United States has nothing to do with aircraft procurement. Canada benefits economically far more than Israel ever has.

No F-35's for you!

[William Ashley]

Nope....your personal beef with the United States has nothing to do with aircraft procurement. Canada benefits economically far more than Israel ever has.

No F-35's for you!

Its not a personal beef the trust issue is a personal beef due to self experience - the procurement issue (actually I support the purchases due to NORAD but I find the purchases to be totally unnecesary but the program was criminal due to fraud in representation of costs)

Also the issue of location of production ought to be higher on the governments list when taking on procurement of long term defence projects.

It is stupid to fight the project because it will go ahead based on being 20 years old now and the money has been poured into it.

But Canadians should understand they are being unfairly treated - paying more than the US per unit, and basically paying the US government for each unit they purchase. This all ought to be offset by mutual defence - although the US is far more likely to drag Canada into a war than Canada to drag the US into one if Harper wasn't so overt in actually making the North a personal PR stunt. None the less I tend to fail to see the Canadian economic benefits offseting economic costs of supporting the program.

The question represents itself - what does Canada intend to do with the planes - how is it positioned in the event of a war - these are likely not publically disclosed but the threat is years away as far as I can see, and costs should be dramatically reduced by then, technology far superior etc... why buy these things in those numbers now?

Edited August 28, 2010 by William Ashley

[Bonam]

But Canadians should understand they are being unfairly treated - paying more than the US per unit, and basically paying the US government for each unit they purchase. This all ought to be offsets by mutual defence - although the US is far more likely to drag Canada into a war than Canada to drag the US into one is Harper wasn't so overt in actually making the North a personal PR stunt. None the less I tend to fail to see the Canadian economic benefits offseting economic costs of supporting the program.

Umm why does this seem wrong to you? Of course the US will get some economic benefit by exporting this plane to other countries. It was developed by Americans, it was Americans who poured in billions and billions of dollars for the R&D. Why would Canada get to benefit from that to the same extent that they do? What we get is a good plane that we can use for the missions that Canada's air force needs.

[bush_cheney2004]

Its not a personal beef the trust issue is a personal beef due to self experience - the procurement issue (actually I support the purchases due to NORAD but I find the purchases to be totally unnecesary but the program was criminal due to fraud in representation of costs)

Then why did you bring it up at all? Your support is irrelevant to the F-35 program, of which Canada has been a small, Tier 3 partner.

Also the issue of location of production ought to be higher on the governments list when taking on procurement of long term defence projects.

Canada will get subcontracts either way.

It is stupid to fight the project because it will go ahead based on being 20 years old now and the money has been poured into it.

Why did you wait so long?

But Canadians should understand they are being unfairly treated - paying more than the US per unit, and basically paying the US government for each unit they purchase. This all ought to be offsets by mutual defence - although the US is far more likely to drag Canada into a war than Canada to drag the US into one is Harper wasn't so overt in actually making the North a personal PR stunt. None the less I tend to fail to see the Canadian economic benefits offseting economic costs of supporting the program.

Canada did not bear the brunt of development costs. Don't want to pay the price? Design and produce your own 5th Gen fighter aircraft or buy something else.

The question represents itself - what does Canada intend to do with the planes - how is it positioned in the event of a war - these are likely not publically disclosed but the threat is years away as far as I can see, and costs should be dramatically reduced by then, technology far superior etc... why buy these things in those numbers now?

What does Canada do with CF-188's today? Go watch them sometime to get an idea.

Edited August 28, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[William Ashley]

Umm why does this seem wrong to you?

Because we are paying more for a plane that will only be used for collective defence - or it is inane. Why are we paying more?

Answer that?

Of course the US will get some economic benefit by exporting this plane to other countries. It was developed by Americans, it was Americans who poured in billions and billions of dollars for the R&D.

Yes but it was developed for the USA, and they would be paying the total cost if it wern't for foreign countries subsidizing their program. OK.. here is the catch though--- who is really benefiting - US R&D? US Engineering, US materials, US Employment (who is supplying their DOD project) the list goes on and on and on. What is Canada getting? Planes that cost millions to maintain, and a partial cost recovery. The overall ain't a really bad deal for Canada - but compared to the deal the US is getting it is bad. Also US patents, US control of technology, and future production, upgrades etc.. all that is owned by the US.

Canada had to pay $10000000 just to know about the project -since when is being informed a costing? Who exaclty had delta ops following them around? Are they still alive? Or what was the money for?

Why would Canada get to benefit from that to the same extent that they do?

Why does Israel get $3 Billion a year to buy military equipment? Why doesn't the US just put an aircraft carrier of their coast?

Same goes for Canada - what exactly is Canada gonna use these planes for? And if so, why wouldn't being subsidized make some sense. Get it that the US government makes money off line of control on equipment and outlays, Canada recovers only a fraction of that, and as stated while Canada doesn't have that bad of a deal - compared to the US and Israel it does. Also what exactly is Canada gonna use these for? And why so many this early befor the UNITS longterm usability is projected eg. what if these things stealth is turned to be obsolete by new technology or detection systems? What if some type of flaw is found? etc.. why put all your eggs in one basket? Something like 5 or 10 of these initially wouldn't be bad with a couple new units each year on a phazed delivery but the size of the purchase is not reasonable, imo. Although overall it is floating lockheed, the US gov. benefits from assets Canada as far as I am aware of doesn't require at the level it has. This project is scuttled 4 years from now, and a lot can happen in 4 years. I bet there is a reason the US makes expensive planes - because they benefit the most in producing them. This is in part why Europe doesn't buy the stuff nearly as much, they arn't as much of a satalite as Canada is.

What we get is a good plane that we can use for the missions that Canada's air force needs.

What fighting forest fires? How many downed bears does it take to light a match?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why does Israel get $3 Billion a year to buy military equipment?

Lots of reasons, but are you now begging for US foreign aid? Has it come to that?

[msj]

Same goes for Canada - what exactly is Canada gonna use these planes for?

Don't you know?

While it may be cheaper to not shoot down Russians approaching Canadian Airspace

with our old CF-18's, it's much better to not shoot them down with really expensive fighters.

Now you know.

And knowing is half the battle!

[refreshrefillrepeat1]

Hasn't his been happening for years? And was only turned into a big deal by the Conservatives?

Certainly doesn't justify the F-35 ( as cool as it is)

[wyly]

Hasn't his been happening for years? And was only turned into a big deal by the Conservatives?

Certainly doesn't justify the F-35 ( as cool as it is)

nope it doesn't, and the plane will be no faster at interception from our air bases to the arctic, if the government really wanted to make a difference they'd build an airbase in the arctic but that it's as photo-op worthy as a new plane...