Moonbox Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 Bad examples. The F18 is quite capable even against modern fighters today. Also, had no one thought 40 years ago to raise taxes and reduce spending so as to pay off the debt so that we'd be debt free today? The F18 is 'capable' against current 4th generation fighters and SAM technology. The F-35 is considered four times as effective as a 4th generation fighter (the F-18 is 4th generation). Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 The F-35 is considered four times as effective as a 4th generation fighter (the F-18 is 4th generation). Which is why 65 is actually considered to be an increase in capability. I doubt we'll be able to form two 24 aircraft combat squadrons as we have now though. Maybe two 18 to 20 aircraft squadrons. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 While 65 may be consider an increase in the aircrafts capibilities, 65 may not be enough aircraft to cover our present commitments, unless those commitments are downscaled as well. 36 Aircraft are dedicated to Norad, another 20 are dedicated to training, and testing and evals, another 6 are put aside for any NATO commitments, and whats left over is dedicated to Support army commitments..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 There will, if the current ratio is kept, be 40 combat operational aircraft instead of 48. It would be expected that each commitment will have a proportional decrease in the number of aircraft. At one time we had more aircraft, and we adjusted down to current levels. Each time, we end up with fewer, but more capable aircraft. The simple reality is, all told, with maintenance and support, this contract could run $15B. We can't afford to spend more than that on a single project. Quote
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 another 20 are dedicated to training, Oh, if there are 48 combat operational aircraft, that means that there are 30 - 32 dedicated to training and such. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 We can't afford to spend more than that on a single project. Then we should buy cheaper craft...one may be more capable....but one capable craft cannot do twice the air coverage to replace two craft...unless it can fly twice as far, for twice the time aloft, with twice the lifespan of the craft....sort of like saying todays frigate has 5 times the fire power of a 1970 model...its true but it still can't be in 5 places at once... In other words, 65 super planes cannot be tasked to fly 130 missions... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 In other words, 65 super planes cannot be tasked to fly 130 missions... Well, we can't that now, and probably haven't been able to for years. Every day, right now, there are 34 F-18s ready to go. That means we can do 17 missions at once...and if we did, that would be a bad thing. Quote
Machjo Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 Then we should buy cheaper craft...one may be more capable....but one capable craft cannot do twice the air coverage to replace two craft...unless it can fly twice as far, for twice the time aloft, with twice the lifespan of the craft....sort of like saying todays frigate has 5 times the fire power of a 1970 model...its true but it still can't be in 5 places at once... In other words, 65 super planes cannot be tasked to fly 130 missions... Precisely. And let's consider too that technology isn't everything. The US got their butts kicked out of Vietnam, the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and heck, we're struggling in Afghanistan against Ak47s. Let's not underestimate the will of the people. No technological advancement will ever overcome that. Again, at the end of the day, balancing the budget ought to take priority. By the way, I'm sure a WWII rifle can still pose a threat to a US soldier carrying a modern rifle. The same would apply with aircraft. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 (edited) unless it can fly twice as far, for twice the time aloft, The F-35 have twice the combat radius of the CF-188. Only the Eurofighter Typhoon can fly farther in combat mode....and it quite possibly costs more and doesn't do what we need it to. The only other aircraft I can see us buying is the Gripen. Edited June 9, 2010 by Smallc Quote
Machjo Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 Well, we can't that now, and probably haven't been able to for years. Every day, right now, there are 34 F-18s ready to go. That means we can do 17 missions at once...and if we did, that would be a bad thing. Iraqis have managed to take down a number of US aircraft using weapons fare less expensive. The Taliban have shot down a few US helicopters too, and on some occasions US fighter planes were useless owing to the enemy being too close to friendlies, making the dropping of bombs risky, and firing cannons at that speed at a motionless target highly imprecise. This just does not reflect the reality of war today. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 That means we can do 17 missions at once...and if we did, that would be a bad thing. 17 missions of what...4 hours each? east coast...2 planes for 4 hours= 12 sorties = 1 day west coast 2 planes for 4 hours = 12 sorties= 1 day Arctic 2 planes for 4 hours= 12 sorties= 1 day If we had to task the airforce with conducting 24 hour patrols on both coasts and the arctic...we would come up short...we could probably keep it up for only a couple of days before they were all grounded for maintenance... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 17 missions of what...4 hours each? east coast...2 planes for 4 hours= 12 sorties = 1 day west coast 2 planes for 4 hours = 12 sorties= 1 day Arctic 2 planes for 4 hours= 12 sorties= 1 day If we had to task the airforce with conducting 24 hour patrols on both coasts and the arctic...we would come up short...we could probably keep it up for only a couple of days before they were all grounded for maintenance... You're probably right, but that's the reality of the situation when you live in a large country with a small population. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 Iraqis have managed to take down a number of US aircraft using weapons fare less expensive. The Taliban have shot down a few US helicopters too, and on some occasions US fighter planes were useless owing to the enemy being too close to friendlies, making the dropping of bombs risky, and firing cannons at that speed at a motionless target highly imprecise. This just does not reflect the reality of war today. The above does not reflect reality... You say a number of US aircraft...how many exactly? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 You're probably right, but that's the reality of the situation when you live in a large country with a small population. It's the reality when you buy something that is out of our league. I mean I am all for 65 f 35s....but we should have other less expensive capabilities..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 It's the reality when you buy something that is out of our league. I mean I am all for 65 f 35s....but we should have other less expensive capabilities..... Well, we could have about twice as many Gripens. Anything else is really too expensive. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 Well, we could have about twice as many Gripens. Anything else is really too expensive. I'll take 140 Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 I'll take 140 But.....just a few F-35s could probably blow them all out of the sky. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 We could afford about 200 of these... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas And we could put the call support centre in Halifax for irony points... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 But.....just a few F-35s could probably blow them all out of the sky. 1) Yes you are right....do our potential enemies fly F 35s? 2) No you ar wrong..a few would run out of fuel before they encounterd all of them Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Machjo Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 You're probably right, but that's the reality of the situation when you live in a large country with a small population. I was reading this on the Gripen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAS_39_Gripen#Expeditionary_capabilities What's perhaps more interesting that the aircraft itself is the overall philosophy behind it. It was designed as an expeditionary aircraft, thus designed for low maintenance, ability to take off from short runways, etc. The idea stemmed originally from the Cold War with the idea that if Sweden were attacked by the USSR, the Swedish military would likley be eventually overrun, so the idea was to spread military supplies out across the country so that even if central military installations succumbed, Sweden could still inflict losses on the enemy. In that spirit, the Gripen can be refuelled by a truck on a regular civilian highway. As it turns out though, this expeditionary capability has also proven beneficial for peacekeeping operations since obviously such operations are not always conducted in ideal environments. But here you can see how Sweden's military philosophy is very different from the US one. It's not about being able to outdo any possible or imagined enemy on all fronts, which is bound to eventually bankrupt the country in the end, and that is financially unsustainable. The Swedish strategy is actually more like Switzerland's: You don't necessarily have to outperform the enemy militarily; you just have to make yourself enough of a potential nuisance for the enemy to conclude that though it could win against you, it could do so only under great losses to itself and so conclude that attacking you is just not worthwhile. Such a strategy is much more economically viable and sustainable and realistic. The impression I get is that the current government in Canada is trying to follow the US' economically unsustainable strategy. Personally, I think we ought to learn from the Swedish model. Let's not try to outdo all possible enemies on all fronts since that's just not possible. Let's aim for a more realistic strategy instead. Perhaps a Swedish-style military might be in order? Sure it can mean conscription for most, but it is a much more economically sound model, and government policy cannot be piecemeal, looking at each element independently from the others. It must take a more holistic approach, and that means looking too at how military spending, defense issues, and economic sustainability all interact. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 (edited) 1) Yes you are right....do our potential enemies fly F 35s? 2) No you ar wrong..a few would run out of fuel before they encounterd all of them 130 Gripens would run out before 65 F-35s ever did. Edited June 9, 2010 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 We could afford about 200 of these... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas And we could put the call support centre in Halifax for irony points... The airforce seems to think that is needs a fifth generation fighter though...so we won't be getting anything but the F-35. Quote
Machjo Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 How many hand-held anti-aircraft weapons could we buy for the price of one of these aircraft? Cheap, easy to train someone to use, lightweight, small, compact, easy to use, and owing to the price, could easily outnumber aircraft by far. And since a man hiding in the bushes is much harder to spot than a fighter plane in the air, who has the advantage? Add to that that if the aircraft spots a soldier, a missile is an expensive way to get a few soldiers. If a soldier spots an airplane, a rocket of probably no more than a few hundred dollars could take a multi-million dollar airplane out of the air. Think about it. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Machjo Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 F35, a more expensive target for the Taliban's hand-held anti-aircraft weapons. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Machjo Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 The way I see it, the F35 is based on the old Cold War idea of being able to fight an equally advanced professional force. In the modern world, that's highly unlikely. Now it's usually guerrilla wars, and so the military must reflect that. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
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.