Buying US jets

[DogOnPorch]

That would be sweet....just to sit on the flight decks and mock fly them.

The one at the Boneyard seems to spend most of time removing instruments and such from aircraft heading for the chopper. That or plastic wrapping those due to be sold-off or moth balled. Now at least he gets to order others to do the job.

One task he mentioned was having to occasionally set fire to decommisioned Titan rocket stages due to the hypergolic residue left behind...highly poisonous still.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh yea...."Wings" made a point of the very dangerous "T-Stoff" and "C-Stoff" hydrazines.

The Me-163, like the V-2, killed more people making and testing them than they did in combat use.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Me-163, like the V-2, killed more people making and testing them than they did in combat use.

...RAUCHEN VERBOTEN !!!!

Edited November 26, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

...NICHTRAUCHER !!!!

Ausschliesslich Verboten!

[bush_cheney2004]

Ausschliesslich Verboten!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0lCv9MJnSg&feature=related

[bush_cheney2004]

THAT'S IT !

Canada could build hundreds of modern ME-163 interceptors....very cheap!

[DogOnPorch]

(vid)

lol...fuel-a-flyin'...you can see why NASA has strict range safety rules. This particular event happened right over the Cape. No live lost...just some Hondas and Accuras in the parking lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=appMDzLeT_Q

[DogOnPorch]

THAT'S IT !

Canada could build hundreds of modern ME-163 interceptors....very cheap!

Mostly wood...like this sucker.

[Army Guy]

More on Canada's concern about Software not being provided, it seems Canada is not all that concerned after all, media hype, Maybe....

My linkcommunities.canada.com

[Guest American Woman]

I'm still wondering why Canada would invest millions of dollars in helping to develop a jet that they might never purchase.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Army Guy]

nice of you to post a link proving my point, two carriers sunk by surface ships the rest air or submarine, the day of the battleship ended with their first real encounter with carriers dec 7th '41

And yet they still served in most navies until well into the 90's, and well most have been made into museums they are still around...

and from some research I've done fighters could be going the way of the battleship(and carriers soon to join them)...missile technology is advancing so quickly that fighters will be redundant...

To even suggest the Aircraft carrier is a thing of the past, well sir, is alittle funney one commie missle does not make an entire naval battle group obsolete, it simply means that the battle group will have to incorporate different tactics and defensive systems. I think the Aircraft Carrier is here to stay for atleast another 30 years, serveral countries are spending billions on these new advance Carriers...It is one of the largest power projection tools in the US arsenal,in anyones arsenal and i don't think they willing to lose it just yet...

As for fighters, I've read some of the research done by the CF in regards to the JSF, it seems that there was a huge concern over which type of fighter to purchase or wait for, Manned (F-35)or unmaned UCAV ( I think i may have it electronically i can PM it to anyone that wants it, it's not really for public consumption so i won't post a link to it) but no mention or concern of retiring the fighter as a tool of war...UCAV tech is coming and it won't be soon after the F-35 hits the market that the US will come up with a bigger badder UCAV, But as long as Man or i should say the Pilots have the need for thier adrinaline rush of going mach alot with thier ass on fire....man aircraft are here for awhile...

After the cold war, governments where talking about getting rid of the tank....once again because of missle tech....and yet every nation seems to continue buying them up...missles or no missles...and yet every conflict we use them, because they serve an important role on the battle field.

[Army Guy]

I'm still wondering why Canada would invest millions of dollars in helping to develop a jet that they might never purchase.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Canada has alrady spent alot of time and funds chosing an replacement aircraft for the F-18....It was narrowed down to 3 aircraft, F-35, F-22 and Euro fighter...DO to cost the F-22 was knocked out, and well the F-35 is a better aircraft than the Euro fighter hands down...So if Canada ever gets the funding to purchase aircraft it's a no brainer...

The government actually spent more time studying the pros and cons of manned or unmanned aircraft, than it did narrowing down the field to the F-35...

[Guest American Woman]

Canada has alrady spent alot of time and funds chosing an replacement aircraft for the F-18....It was narrowed down to 3 aircraft, F-35, F-22 and Euro fighter...DO to cost the F-22 was knocked out, and well the F-35 is a better aircraft than the Euro fighter hands down...So if Canada ever gets the funding to purchase aircraft it's a no brainer...

The government actually spent more time studying the pros and cons of manned or unmanned aircraft, than it did narrowing down the field to the F-35...

There's a lot that I don't understand about it, but that helps explain it. Thank you.

[Alta4ever]

There's a lot that I don't understand about it, but that helps explain it. Thank you.

Not to mention that Laugheed Martin Does have production facilities in Canada, It would be nice to build some components for it.

[Wilber]

I'm wondering what the Israelis would make of the idea that there is no need for up to date manned fighters in this world. Not much methinks.

[wyly]

He means the fabled Angara...still a fable for the time being. Ares is well ahead with only politics standing in the way.

you guys are pathetic Angara line of rockets engines have already been tested, first test flights scheduled for 2011...

[Wilber]

THAT'S IT !

Canada could build hundreds of modern ME-163 interceptors....very cheap!

Where would we get the people to fly them? It kind of leads to an interesting point however. In the eighties a British general by the name of John Hackett (interesting dude, Google him) wrote several books, one being on a scenario for a conventional war between NATO and the Soviets in Europe at that time. One of the points he made was that any such war would be short because the combatants would quickly run out of high tech weaponry and the highly trained people required to use it. Unlike the previous two world wars, equipment and personnel cannot be quickly replaced. The idea being that unless you are going to rely on overwhelming your opposition by shear numbers like the Soviets and possibly Chinese in future, your stuff and people will need to be much better than theirs because they will have to be.

Some Canadians seem to have trouble with the idea that military equipment wears out just like their car. There is little point in replacing old stuff with more old stuff and anything new is going to be much more capable and probably more expensive. Go figure.

Even if you are one of those guys who wants to relive their youth by getting a new retro Mustang, Camaro or Challenger, those new cars are ten times the vehicles they are meant to imitate.

[M.Dancer]

you guys are pathetic Angara line of rockets engines have already been tested, first test flights scheduled for 2011...

Links?

[wyly]

And yet they still served in most navies until well into the 90's, and well most have been made into museums they are still around...

useless cans unless you want to attack Grenada or some equivalent powerhouse...how long did the General Belgrano last vs a modern navy?

To even suggest the Aircraft carrier is a thing of the past, well sir, is alittle funney one commie missle does not make an entire naval battle group obsolete, it simply means that the battle group will have to incorporate different tactics and defensive systems. I think the Aircraft Carrier is here to stay for atleast another 30 years, serveral countries are spending billions on these new advance Carriers...It is one of the largest power projection tools in the US arsenal,in anyones arsenal and i don't think they willing to lose it just yet...

again, great vs the Grenada's and Iraq of the world vs a Navy equipped with nuclear tipped cruise missiles the entire carrier fleet is obsolete...I trust the opinion of my Bro-in-law Commander RCN(his specialty weapons systems and anti submarine warfare) estimate of survival time in nuclear naval engagement 15 minutes

As for fighters, I've read some of the research done by the CF in regards to the JSF, it seems that there was a huge concern over which type of fighter to purchase or wait for, Manned (F-35)or unmaned UCAV ( I think i may have it electronically i can PM it to anyone that wants it, it's not really for public consumption so i won't post a link to it) but no mention or concern of retiring the fighter as a tool of war...UCAV tech is coming and it won't be soon after the F-35 hits the market that the US will come up with a bigger badder UCAV, But as long as Man or i should say the Pilots have the need for thier adrinaline rush of going mach alot with thier ass on fire....man aircraft are here for awhile...

no one says there won't be a need for aircraft but the days of fighters are numbered and we don't need anything this sophisticated and expensive, a better bigger fleet of helicopters has more value...

After the cold war, governments where talking about getting rid of the tank....once again because of missle tech....and yet every nation seems to continue buying them up...missles or no missles...and yet every conflict we use them, because they serve an important role on the battle field.

tanks are effective when the other side doesn't have the capability to destroy them...Israel learned that when it's tank force was pounded by Hezbollah missiles and forced Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon...if the Taliban had these missiles Canadian tanks would be neutralized and wouldn't even leave their bases, just as stinger missiles neutralized the Soviet attack helicopters 30 yrs ago...

[wyly]

Links?

angara

[DogOnPorch]

Links?

There's some nice looking models and diagrams. But nothing like this...

Ain't she sweet.

[DogOnPorch]

angara

Russian Space Web is a quality site. I suggest you read it carefully. As of 2009 they are still test firing the new LOX/kerosene engines...ie: in their test stands. As well, this rocket is supposed to replace the Proton as a heavy-lifter more than any other role. Those engines will have quite the kick and might not be suitable for safe manned launches...unless you're Chinese that is.

[Wilber]

name='wyly' date='26 November 2009 - 10:42 AM' timestamp='1259259267' post='486032']

useless cans unless you want to attack Grenada or some equivalent powerhouse...how long did the General Belgrano last vs a modern navy?

The US used WW2 battleships to bombard coastal installations up until after the first gulf war. With its armour a properly equipped WW2 battleship could probably survive a nuclear attack better than the most modern ships. They were finally shelved because they were 60 years old and too expensive to operate. They have a use as long as you can protect them. The Belgrano was on its own. A sitting duck.

again, great vs the Grenada's and Iraq of the world vs a Navy equipped with nuclear tipped cruise missiles the entire carrier fleet is obsolete...I trust the opinion of my Bro-in-law Commander RCN(his specialty weapons systems and anti submarine warfare) estimate of survival time in nuclear naval engagement 15 minutes

The whole world has a life expectancy of 15 minutes in a nuclear engagement. What's your point?

no one says there won't be a need for aircraft but the days of fighters are numbered and we don't need anything this sophisticated and expensive, a better bigger fleet of helicopters has more value...

When the Russians send their Bears out testing our airspace, what do we great them with, a helicopter? If Canada wants to exercise sovereignty over its own territory it at least has to be capable of showing it exists. It depends on where you have to operate those helicopters. How long will your helicopters survive against fighters if you can't protect them?

tanks are effective when the other side doesn't have the capability to destroy them...Israel learned that when it's tank force was pounded by Hezbollah missiles and forced Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon...if the Taliban had these missiles Canadian tanks would be neutralized and wouldn't even leave their bases, just as stinger missiles neutralized the Soviet attack helicopters 30 yrs ago...

There is no one size fits all weapon, in spite of the fact each have their weaknesses and they also have their uses. The Israelis haven't given up on tanks in spite of the fact they can be destroyed. Stingers can destroy helicopters. IED's can destroy vehicles but you obviously need both to operate in places like Afghanistan. What's your solution?

[wyly]

Russian Space Web is a quality site. I suggest you read it carefully. As of 2009 they are still test firing the new LOX/kerosene engines...ie: in their test stands. As well, this rocket is supposed to replace the Proton as a heavy-lifter more than any other role. Those engines will have quite the kick and might not be suitable for safe manned launches...unless you're Chinese that is.

I suggest you read it again...

here is the Angara first stage being used by South Korea...

[wyly]

The US used WW2 battleships to bombard coastal installations up until after the first gulf war. With its armour a properly equipped WW2 battleship could probably survive a nuclear attack better than the most modern ships. They were finally shelved because they were 60 years old and too expensive to operate. They have a use as long as you can protect them. The Belgrano was on its own. A sitting duck.

a battleship survive a direct hit from a nuclear tipped cruise missile what colour is the sky in your world?

here is the

variation of the Russian missile, being supersonic it's already faster than a bullet the next generation will be Hypersonic...

The whole world has a life expectancy of 15 minutes in a nuclear engagement. What's your point?

what's your point?..read the thread

When the Russians send their Bears out testing our airspace, what do we great them with, a helicopter? If Canada wants to exercise sovereignty over its own territory it at least has to be capable of showing it exists. It depends on where you have to operate those helicopters. How long will your helicopters survive against fighters if you can't protect them?

BS the Russians do what they always do as do the Americans, they never violated Canadian airspace that was just Harper playing Captain Canada...

There is no one size fits all weapon, in spite of the fact each have their weaknesses and they also have their uses. The Israelis haven't given up on tanks in spite of the fact they can be destroyed. Stingers can destroy helicopters. IED's can destroy vehicles but you obviously need both to operate in places like Afghanistan. What's your solution?

irrelevant question...