nicky10013 Posted July 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 Start smaller with SCUD missile launchers! Forgive me again, can SCUDs reach Canada from China? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 They can't? Uhh, forgive me for sounding naive, but why the hell not. If you ask me, that works into my argument because if SAM batteries can't pull it off, neither can 65 F-35s. Because the first wave will be defense suppression "Wild Weasels" sorties to destroy the eyes and ears of the missile batteries (that you have also not purchased). If you can take down cruise missles, buy the radar. Canada didn't even buy radios or targeting pods for the "cheap" CF-188's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 You don't know that and neither do I. I am sure glad you are not making those kind of decisions. And for your other argument about SAMs and bombers. You'd want to know about ECM and ECCM and how that has also escalated and improved upon. Most of your arguments here are pretty weak. To guarantee that we will be able to live like we do, we need to have the ability to protect it. It's that simple. SAMs won't cut it. The SAMs are negated by new tech on the planes, then that gets negated by the investment into better SAMs. The edge goes to the F-35 over all other craft, is because it's on the cutting edge of technology. It won't last forever, but it's the best available for the price and you do have to consider our political environment. And eventually we will have to spend money to replace the F-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 Forgive me again, can SCUDs reach Canada from China? Why are you hatin' on China? Canada can be attacked from a much closer surface ship or submarine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) Because the first wave will be defense suppression "Wild Weasels" sorties to destroy the eyes and ears of the missile batteries (that you have also not purchased). And? Canada didn't even buy radios or targeting pods for the "cheap" CF-188's. Well, that's not entirely accurate. the CF-18 was perfectly capable of targeting for air to air combat. The targeting laser pods for laser guided weapons were stalled some time during the 90s as they dropped smartbombs in Yugoslavia in 99. Edited July 31, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 Why are you hatin' on China? Canada can be attacked from a much closer surface ship or submarine. By a missle that can be destroyed before impact? Also, in todays international climate, the only country that could probably pull off an invasion is either Russia or China. Any type of provocation less than the invasion of the continent would be geopolitically stupid. Tell me, what country WOULDN'T team up to whoop the country that beat up on poor little Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) And? ...and the next wave would be strike missions with CAP. F-35's would do nicely. Well, that's not entirely accurate. the CF-18 was perfectly capable of targeting for air to air combat. The targeting laser pods for laser guided weapons were stalled some time during the 90s as they dropped smartbombs in Yugoslavia in 99. No it wasn't....no modern IFF. Other pods and smart bombs were lacking as well. Canada had to borrow and beg some from the American bastards at Aviano. Edited July 31, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) By a missle that can be destroyed before impact? Also, in todays international climate, the only country that could probably pull off an invasion is either Russia or China. Any type of provocation less than the invasion of the continent would be geopolitically stupid. Tell me, what country WOULDN'T team up to whoop the country that beat up on poor little Canada? Yes...cruise missile attacks ("impact" is not the right concept). Why are you obesessed with "invasion" as the only meaningful threshold for concern? Canada has interests and obligations around the globe. What country? Haiti or Serbia Edited July 31, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 Yes...cruise missile attacks ("impact" is not the right concept). Why are you obesessed with "invasion" as the only meaningful threshold for concern? Canada has interests and obligations around the globe. What country? Haiti or Serbia I don't disagree that we have interests. My point is that we need to figure out what they are and what plane fits our needs best. I don't think anyone can principally disagree with that. Hell, if it were the Liberals that made this decision that's what the Harper gang and the CPC wonks here would be screaming for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 I don't disagree that we have interests. My point is that we need to figure out what they are and what plane fits our needs best. I don't think anyone can principally disagree with that. Hell, if it were the Liberals that made this decision that's what the Harper gang and the CPC wonks here would be screaming for. The way this is going, if Canada was bitching while waiting in line for fighters, the Soup Nazi would say, "NO F-35 FOR YOU!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 The way this is going, if Canada was bitching while waiting in line for fighters, the Soup Nazi would say, "NO F-35 FOR YOU!!" hahaha, well the way I see it, if we don't have to sign until 2013 we've got time for soul searching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 hahaha, well the way I see it, if we don't have to sign until 2013 we've got time for soul searching. OK...but what are you searching for? Was there such "searching" for heavy airlift (CC-177)? Big fly-off and media circus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 OK...but what are you searching for? Was there such "searching" for heavy airlift (CC-177)? Big fly-off and media circus? No, for 16 billion dollars which is a LOT of money for a population of only 30 million people, I'd like to see a complete review of defence policy followed up by a tendered competition. Maybe a defence review is asking for a little much but we haven't had one in ages. We need to set new priorities for the 21st century to make the forces more efficient whichever direction we plan to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 No, for 16 billion dollars which is a LOT of money for a population of only 30 million people, I'd like to see a complete review of defence policy followed up by a tendered competition. Maybe a defence review is asking for a little much but we haven't had one in ages. We need to set new priorities for the 21st century to make the forces more efficient whichever direction we plan to go. A complete bottoms-up defence review? That's just a stalling tactic. These kind of purchases are so polticized in Canada, it's a wonder anything gets procured at all. PM Harper has done a lot in only four years, but some things never change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 A complete bottoms-up defence review? That's just a stalling tactic. These kind of purchases are so polticized in Canada, it's a wonder anything gets procured at all. PM Harper has done a lot in only four years, but some things never change. I don't think so. If we have an honest review and adopt new defence principles, whose to say it won't lead us away from a 16 billion dollar purchase that didn't necessarily have to be made. It needs to be done anyhow. Why not now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-convert-russian-bomber-incident-into-pitch-for-new-jets/article1658006/ Two CF-18s scrambled out of CFB Bagotville, Que., and started shadowing the Russian planes about 50 nautical miles outside the Canadian territory, until they headed northeast and out of the “area of interest.”While similar incidents occur 12 to 18 times a year, a story on the confrontation appeared on Friday morning in the Sun Media chain. Within a few hours, the Conservative Party issued talking points on the matter designed to boost the Harper government’s plan to buy Joint Strike Fighter F-35 fighter jets to start replacing the CF-18s in 2017. Edited July 31, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 I don't think so. If we have an honest review and adopt new defence principles, whose to say it won't lead us away from a 16 billion dollar purchase that didn't necessarily have to be made. It needs to be done anyhow. Why not now? New principles? Like no offensive weapons systems? No NATO or NORAD? No more Turbot Wars? No more sovereignty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 New principles? Like no offensive weapons systems? No NATO or NORAD? No more Turbot Wars? No more sovereignty? I'm not a defence expert, I'm not the one who would do a review so obviously I can't comment on those things. However, since the last one was completed before 9/11, I would imagine the way the west views modern conflict has changed somewhat. Furthermore, with the rise of China and India along with a resurgent Russia combined with the new suprantional terrorist threat, new policies might be something to look at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-convert-russian-bomber-incident-into-pitch-for-new-jets/article1658006/ the russian bombers were some 93K outside of our air space, really peter mckay is a drama queen...and then extra drama from the news media, "canadian planes turned back the russian planes" ...as if that happened, Canadian planes had no right to force any plane off it's flight path in International airspace, if the russian changed flight path it's because they choose to not because they were turned away/frightened off, doing something like that would create a major political incident...this stuff is pure photo-op BS for gullible voters.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 So, if there is a full scale air attack, like a full scale ground attack, 65 F-35s are going to be able to deal with a Russian/Chinese Air Force? I highly doubt it. Like I said, I'm not saying we shouldn't buy planes, but there needs to be a defence review to see what our needs really are. We also need to be more realistic that 65 of these things are going to be able to defend a territory as large as Canada. Why don't you read up on Air power and its tactics I doubt you would like what it says. I wonder how a couple of carrier wings of Harriers managed to hold off the entire Argentine air-force. One that was well equipped and larger then the British force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 Ummm...it's a long way from the two airforce bases to anywhere else. That's why speed matters. which only makes it even more futile there is not anything out there that will make up for the distance....plus two bases are instantly eliminated in any pre-emtive missile attack, a number of smaller bases around the country in hardened shelters using a harrier type aircraft ensures some survivability...yes I know there is a VTOL F35 but that's not what we're getting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 the russian bombers were some 93K outside of our air space, really peter mckay is a drama queen...and then extra drama from the news media, "canadian planes turned back the russian planes" ...as if that happened, Canadian planes had no right to force any plane off it's flight path in International airspace, if the russian changed flight path it's because they choose to not because they were turned away/frightened off, doing something like that would create a major political incident...this stuff is pure photo-op BS for gullible voters.... Now why would armed Russian bombers need to be that close to Canadian/North American air space? I wonder what they were testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) More falsehoods.....manned bomber attacks cannot be eliminated with SAMs, only degraded. The preferred defense is air superiority to begin with. Ditto cruise missiles (which are sub-sonic), and can be attacked successfully with look-down radar with a capable platform. ICBM/SLBM attacks means you've already lost all respect anyway! Agreement...Hanoi is a great example of this in action. Thousands of SAMs didn't stop 'em. Edited July 31, 2010 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 Agreement...Hanoi is a great example of this in action. Thousands of SAMs didn't stop 'em. but the SAM's of those days were in their infancy of development not comparable to todays, ground radar doesn't need to left turned on inviting counter attack, missiles have become fire and forget systems...Stinger missiles were the turning point for the Soviets in Afghanistan...Russian/Indian cruise missiles track, aquire and sort their own targets attacking at mach 2.8 and India is developing a Hypersonic cruise with a intended speed of mach 6.5....the only way future planes will keep ahead of missile technology is if planes become unmanned... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 ECM was in its 'infancy', as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.