Smallc Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 Actually, depending on who is doing the spotting on the coasts, the plane may or may not be armed. Most of the military surveillance planes are. Quote
GWiz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 if planes were useful in that respect there would be no troops on the ground in afghanistan... planes have no presence, they're there for a few seconds and gone, same for any country that would send a plane in our direction...planes can't hold territory, totally useless in that regard... Gotta disagree somewhat... Planes can both spot and prevent IED placements in areas where troops have to move... It's not having enough air presence in Afghanistan that is at least part of the problem... U.S. troops move around a lot more than Canadian troops by helicopter and have a lot more air cover than our troops, it does keep them somewhat safer... Canada's per capita casualties in Afghanistan are unacceptable at around 10%... Part of that reason is inadequate air cover and air transport... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Esq Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Well, I disagree there. Other than a submarine, nothing can outrun a fighter jet... A bullet from a railgun can. the slow speed for standard rail guns is mach 10. fast speed is much higher. put some small ones on some air blimps and make sure the range is greater than the figher jet and you have dead fighters. I won't go into great detail on this type of alternate defence. however here is a little bit of lead in. http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/9-1311.aspx even for standard air defence railguns have a range of 400+ km. meanwhile the f35 - as far as I have seen are all close in weapons of under 200 km. Edited February 3, 2011 by Esq Quote
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 A bullet from a railgun can. the slow speed for standard rail guns is mach 10. fast speed is much higher. put some small ones on some air blimps and make sure the range is greater than the figher jet and you have dead fighters. Making them "small" isn't as easy as you'd think and also involves a reduction in velocity and range. Oh, and you can't shoot a fighter that you haven't detected because it has stealth. Unlike the blimp which is about as un-stealthy as it gets. Quote
Esq Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Making them "small" isn't as easy as you'd think and also involves a reduction in velocity and range. Oh, and you can't shoot a fighter that you haven't detected because it has stealth. Unlike the blimp which is about as un-stealthy as it gets. Ok so what stealth fighters are there? OK now how are you going to detect a stealth fighter anyway? If you can't detect it? False dichotomy? Also you having a sense of difficulty due to your ability to know how, isn't difficulty I experience, it is difficulty you experience. Try to be objective between the two differences. http://info-pollution.com/false.htm Your argument seems to be adherant to not even bother with defence because you can't defend against something you can't detect. Totally making the purchases redundant. Instead - perhaps investing $16 billion dollars to mine the center of the earth with a giant explosive with the threat of detonating it if Canada is attacked is more prudent. Maybe if Canada picks a spot with lots of gold it could self finance. If Canada can manage 100km / month it could maybe have delivery before the f35 was due. 6378 km of rock works out to about 64 months. A little over 5 years. Can you believe the deepest mine in the world is only said to be 4km deep. the bottom line is I don't believe in stealth. I think all technologies can be detected at some point. When you get beyond that point there is a level of redundancy. Edited February 3, 2011 by Esq Quote
GWiz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Ok so what stealth fighters are there? OK now how are you going to detect a stealth fighter anyway? If you can't detect it? False dichotomy? Also you having a sense of difficulty due to your ability to know how, isn't difficulty I experience, it is difficulty you experience. Try to be objective between the two differences. http://info-pollution.com/false.htm Your argument seems to be adherant to not even bother with defence because you can't defend against something you can't detect. Totally making the purchases redundant. Instead - perhaps investing $16 billion dollars to mine the center of the earth with a giant explosive with the threat of detonating it if Canada is attacked is more prudent. Maybe if Canada picks a spot with lots of gold it could self finance. If Canada can manage 100km / month it could maybe have delivery before the f35 was due. 6378 km of rock works out to about 64 months. A little over 5 years. Can you believe the deepest mine in the world is only said to be 4km deep. the bottom line is I don't believe in stealth. I think all technologies can be detected at some point. When you get beyond that point there is a level of redundancy. I like that... Let's start digging... This thread sure has a LOT of UPS and DOWNS on it, eh... ps - I'm not sold on stealth either, especially not as an expensive trade off of what Canada truly NEEDS... Edited February 3, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
wyly Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 the bottom line is I don't believe in stealth. I think all technologies can be detected at some pointand for considerably less cash than it took to develop the stealth...we spend billions for stealth and russians design a detection and missile system for a fraction of the cost and sell it to anyone who can afford it...our super expensive stealth will be obsolete long before it's 40yr projected lifespan is reached...my guess is 5-10yrs, russians already claim they can detect stealth planes and can retrofit existing planes for a few million each... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Ok so what stealth fighters are there? OK now how are you going to detect a stealth fighter anyway? If you can't detect it? False dichotomy? Stealth means something is harder to detect, not that it is impossible to detect. Stealth fighters will detect each other when they get close to each other, if they are equally stealthy, neither gaining the advantage due to stealth. On the other hand, a stealth fighter will detect your rail gun blimp far before the blimp detect its, advantage: fighter. Also you having a sense of difficulty due to your ability to know how, isn't difficulty I experience, it is difficulty you experience. Try to be objective between the two differences. Not sure what you are trying to say here. That I know too much about the technical stuff and therefore can't be as happy to go along with random nonsensical proposals? Your argument seems to be adherant to not even bother with defence because you can't defend against something you can't detect. Totally making the purchases redundant. Nope, that's your misreading of my argument, not my argument. Instead - perhaps investing $16 billion dollars to mine the center of the earth with a giant explosive with the threat of detonating it if Canada is attacked is more prudent. If it's a matter of deterrent, a nuclear arsenal would be simpler and more effective. If Canada can manage 100km / month it could maybe have delivery before the f35 was due.6378 km of rock works out to about 64 months. A little over 5 years. Can you believe the deepest mine in the world is only said to be 4km deep. The rock only goes down ~30 km. Then you hit mantle, and then core. No existing human technology can bore down into the mantle or the core. These are fluids, not solids, you can't just drill into it, as the material will flow back into the bore you create. You'd have to line the sides with a rigid wall as you bore down, but the deeper you go, the higher would be the pressure and temperature. While advanced ceramics can withstand the temperatures without melting (no metals can), no material could withstand the pressure difference. Additionally, placing an explosive weapon at the center of the Earth would have no effect, not even if it was a gigantic nuclear weapon. You would need something thousands of times more powerful than the most powerful nuclear weapon ever built exploding at the center to produce an effect significantly noticeable on the surface. the bottom line is I don't believe in stealth. I think all technologies can be detected at some point. The point is not to be undetectable, but to gain advantage over your opponent by detecting them before they detect you. In general, non-stealth aircraft fighting stealth ones will lose, because they will get shot out of the sky before they ever see their opponents. Edited February 3, 2011 by Bonam Quote
GWiz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 Stealth means something is harder to detect, not that it is impossible to detect. Stealth fighters will detect each other when they get close to each other, if they are equally stealthy, neither gaining the advantage due to stealth. On the other hand, a stealth fighter will detect your rail gun blimp far before the blimp detect its, advantage: fighter. Not sure what you are trying to say here. That I know too much about the technical stuff and therefore can't be as happy to go along with random nonsensical proposals? Nope, that's your misreading of my argument, not my argument. If it's a matter of deterrent, a nuclear arsenal would be simpler and more effective. The rock only goes down ~30 km. Then you hit mantle, and then core. No existing human technology can bore down into the mantle or the core. These are fluids, not solids, you can't just drill into it, as the material will flow back into the bore you create. You'd have to line the sides with a rigid wall as you bore down, but the deeper you go, the higher would be the pressure and temperature. While advanced ceramics can withstand the temperatures without melting (no metals can), no material could withstand the pressure difference. Additionally, placing an explosive weapon at the center of the Earth would have no effect, not even if it was a gigantic nuclear weapon. You would need something thousands of times more powerful than the most powerful nuclear weapon ever built exploding at the center to produce an effect significantly noticeable on the surface. The point is not to be undetectable, but to gain advantage over your opponent by detecting them before they detect you. In general, non-stealth aircraft fighting stealth ones will lose, because they will get shot out of the sky before they ever see their opponents. Who are we gonna fight? Where are we gonna fight them? Please be specific... What are THEIR stealth capabilities? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 Who are we gonna fight? Where are we gonna fight them? Please be specific... What are THEIR stealth capabilities? Whoever we have to, wherever we have to, whenever we have to, to ensure our nation's security and interests. What their technological capabilities may be we do not know, but the more advanced our own systems are, the likelier that we will match or outclass our opponents. Quote
GWiz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 Whoever we have to, wherever we have to, whenever we have to, to ensure our nation's security and interests. What their technological capabilities may be we do not know, but the more advanced our own systems are, the likelier that we will match or outclass our opponents. Bring on the USA, we can take them... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 Bring on the USA, we can take them... Fighting the USA military is unlikely to be in Canada's interests in the foreseeable future. Quote
GWiz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 Fighting the USA military is unlikely to be in Canada's interests in the foreseeable future. Exactly my point... So answer the questions based on the fact that any "enemy" we could possibly face would be in conjuction with the U.S. and not against them... ie - If the F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" is good enough as a NEW State of the art Fighter for the U.S. Navy, and other purchasers/potential purchasers of the F-35 NOW, why not us? It certainly has countless advantages over waiting for an unproven airframe some 8 years down the road... Let's hedge our bets like the U.S. Navy and those other countries including the UK which is also buying it's own brand NOW... Have a look: NOW - http://www.mapleleaf...ndpost&p=621061 FUTURE - http://www.mapleleaf...ndpost&p=621074 Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 ... If the F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet"[/url] is good enough as a NEW State of the art Fighter for the U.S. Navy, and other purchasers/potential purchasers of the F-35 NOW, why not us? .... The F/A-18E/F is not new, having started low rate production about 15 years ago. More than half of new US Navy's procurements are for Growler EW variants. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
WIP Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Whoever we have to, wherever we have to, whenever we have to, to ensure our nation's security and interests. What their technological capabilities may be we do not know, but the more advanced our own systems are, the likelier that we will match or outclass our opponents. Oh come on! You can't really believe this is about national security. We can just follow the U.S. example to learn that this is about the MONEY....specifically the money to be made by arms manufacturers who are awarded big, lucrative defense contracts after greasing the palms of greedy, immoral politicians. What this story really means is that the Harper Government has now copied every aspect of the Republican strategy in the U.S. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 The F/A-18E/F is not new, having started low rate production about 15 years ago. More than half of new US Navy's procurements are for Growler EW variants. Still NEW, as in when the actual plane is built... Works for me... No one saying we can't have a mix of planes with different roles when the COST is so much cheaper... Whatever works best for CANADA'S, not someone elses, NEEDS... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Army Guy Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 I think most people are forgetting alot of the most important facts that need to be taken into account. 1. The current F-18 we purchased in 1983, historically we purchase a new airframe every 30 or so years.....which tells us alot, it tells us that what every airframe we agree to buy, needs to have 30 or more years of potential , growth,....that should be the first question on any type we look at "where is this aircraft going to be in 30 years time"........Is it going to be flying with most NATO countries if it is not then R&D on that airframe is going to be flat, and come time for it's mid life upgrade there won't be enough interest or new upgrades to make.....So The manufacture needs to still be in business, and someone out there still has to be flying these types....so there is still a healthy parts supply and , R&D on that type still needs to be ongoing.... Believe or not we went through the same auguments when we purchased the F-18, when the market was flooded with new aircraft the US was already flying , most were having problems, the F-14, 15, 16 and 18 today all of them have proven to be on the top of their game, but each had massive teething problems when first introduced.... Currently the F-18E /F is a fantastic Aircraft, but where will it be in 30 to 40 years, where will it be in 20 years when we are looking at a mid life rebuild......will it be still be considered a front line fighter..... 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.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Still NEW, as in when the actual plane is built... Works for me... No one saying we can't have a mix of planes with different roles when the COST is so much cheaper... Whatever works best for CANADA'S, not someone elses, NEEDS... But you see, that is the problem. Canada wants one type to be all things for all missions, so it is compromised to begin with. Plus it has a history of letting even "new" platforms stand still in time, becoming tactically obsolete. Current efforts to extend CF-188 airframe hours come very late in the game. Sometimes even CANADA'S NEEDS have not been met. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 I think most people are forgetting alot of the most important facts that need to be taken into account. 1. The current F-18 we purchased in 1983, historically we purchase a new airframe every 30 or so years.....which tells us alot, it tells us that what every airframe we agree to buy, needs to have 30 or more years of potential , growth,....that should be the first question on any type we look at "where is this aircraft going to be in 30 years time"........Is it going to be flying with most NATO countries if it is not then R&D on that airframe is going to be flat, and come time for it's mid life upgrade there won't be enough interest or new upgrades to make.....So The manufacture needs to still be in business, and someone out there still has to be flying these types....so there is still a healthy parts supply and , R&D on that type still needs to be ongoing.... Believe or not we went through the same auguments when we purchased the F-18, when the market was flooded with new aircraft the US was already flying , most were having problems, the F-14, 15, 16 and 18 today all of them have proven to be on the top of their game, but each had massive teething problems when first introduced.... Currently the F-18E /F is a fantastic Aircraft, but where will it be in 30 to 40 years, where will it be in 20 years when we are looking at a mid life rebuild......will it be still be considered a front line fighter..... Maybe, maybe not, but is that really the question considering today's technological advances? As BC mentioned have a good look at the Growler varient alongside the F-18F... Sure sounds like a heck of a good "package" to me... Also I'm betting we can strike a pretty good deal with the U.S. re - servicing F-18s in operation around the world 10-20 years from now when the U.S switches over to the NEW tech (unmanned) Fighters... Kinda like Canada did servicing F-5s... Total cost: approx. $5-$6 Billion for 100+ planes, majority of service infostructure and training requirements already in place, far greater range and better refueling capability than the F-35, twin engine vs single engine, the list goes on and on as to why this is the BETTER DEAL for Canada... Have a look at these two earlier posts I made... NOW - http://www.mapleleaf...ndpost&p=621061 + links to back comments up... FUTURE - http://www.mapleleaf...ndpost&p=621074 + links to back comments up... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Army Guy Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Maybe, maybe not, but is that really the question considering today's technological advances? As BC mentioned have a good look at the Growler varient alongside the F-18F... Sure sounds like a heck of a good "package" to me... Also I'm betting we can strike a pretty good deal with the U.S. re - servicing F-18s in operation around the world 10-20 years from now when the U.S switches over to the NEW tech (unmanned) Fighters... Kinda like Canada did servicing F-5s... Total cost: approx. $5-$6 Billion for 100+ planes, majority of service infostructure and training requirements already in place, far greater range and better refueling capability than the F-35, twin engine vs single engine, the list goes on and on as to why this is the BETTER DEAL for Canada... Have a look at these two earlier posts I made... While the growler is a very nice airframe, it is a varient of the F18 E and F model.....it is also as BC mentioned 10 to 15 years old with the early models already being looked at for a mid life rebuild or retrofit alrady or very soon.......Canada as a nation can not afford to purchase an airplane every 10 to 15 years....because once we purchase them our mid life will be at the end of this aircrafts life....R&D projects would have their funding going into something else......and 30 years from now do you think they will still be flying these aircraft.....E&F will be long retired, and they will be looking at something new to replace the growler as well.... Where as the US airforce will still be flying some type of F-35 as it will be they're main airframe....just reference the F-15,16,18 for examples on how long the US flys each model of aircraft..... As for Unmanned aircraft, while todays tech gives us types that are good for recon, and surveil...nothing has even been put on the boards that can compete with manned aircraft, sure they will be working on it ....but nothing close to what we've seen in the movies....and Canada can not hedge those dollars thatt in 10 to 15 years from now that tech will be here....and we'll be able to afford it....or even want it..... 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.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Stealth means something is harder to detect, not that it is impossible to detect. Stealth fighters will detect each other when they get close to each other, if they are equally stealthy, neither gaining the advantage due to stealth. On the other hand, a stealth fighter will detect your rail gun blimp far before the blimp detect its, advantage: fighter. Not sure what you are trying to say here. That I know too much about the technical stuff and therefore can't be as happy to go along with random nonsensical proposals? Nope, that's your misreading of my argument, not my argument. If it's a matter of deterrent, a nuclear arsenal would be simpler and more effective. The rock only goes down ~30 km. Then you hit mantle, and then core. No existing human technology can bore down into the mantle or the core. These are fluids, not solids, you can't just drill into it, as the material will flow back into the bore you create. You'd have to line the sides with a rigid wall as you bore down, but the deeper you go, the higher would be the pressure and temperature. While advanced ceramics can withstand the temperatures without melting (no metals can), no material could withstand the pressure difference. Additionally, placing an explosive weapon at the center of the Earth would have no effect, not even if it was a gigantic nuclear weapon. You would need something thousands of times more powerful than the most powerful nuclear weapon ever built exploding at the center to produce an effect significantly noticeable on the surface. The point is not to be undetectable, but to gain advantage over your opponent by detecting them before they detect you. In general, non-stealth aircraft fighting stealth ones will lose, because they will get shot out of the sky before they ever see their opponents. So why don't we drill to a level where high temperatures can be found and inject water into it then use the steam to power turbines? Quote
Smallc Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Currently the F-18E /F is a fantastic Aircraft, but where will it be in 30 to 40 years, where will it be in 20 years when we are looking at a mid life rebuild......will it be still be considered a front line fighter..... And apparently the F-35 can't do the job because it can't land in the north. If that's the case, why are we buying this thing? Quote
Esq Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) So why don't we drill to a level where high temperatures can be found and inject water into it then use the steam to power turbines? Don't encourage him! Next thing you know we'd have steam powered diamond drills drilling to the center of the earth as a preventative defence. Or why not rock pipelines? Hmm just drill huge tunnels at a level that will produce steam but not boil oil? or processsing vats by geothermal energy and pressure just by a maze of pressure/heat levels for processing of petrochemicals deep underground? We could bread a race of people called morlocks too. Hmm think of the potentials. that is crack science though... Edited February 4, 2011 by Esq Quote
GWiz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 While the growler is a very nice airframe, it is a varient of the F18 E and F model.....it is also as BC mentioned 10 to 15 years old with the early models already being looked at for a mid life rebuild or retrofit alrady or very soon.......Canada as a nation can not afford to purchase an airplane every 10 to 15 years....because once we purchase them our mid life will be at the end of this aircrafts life....R&D projects would have their funding going into something else......and 30 years from now do you think they will still be flying these aircraft.....E&F will be long retired, and they will be looking at something new to replace the growler as well.... Where as the US airforce will still be flying some type of F-35 as it will be they're main airframe....just reference the F-15,16,18 for examples on how long the US flys each model of aircraft..... As for Unmanned aircraft, while todays tech gives us types that are good for recon, and surveil...nothing has even been put on the boards that can compete with manned aircraft, sure they will be working on it ....but nothing close to what we've seen in the movies....and Canada can not hedge those dollars thatt in 10 to 15 years from now that tech will be here....and we'll be able to afford it....or even want it..... - The Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle vision is an affordable weapon system that expands tactical mission options for revolutionary new air power as an integrated part of a system of systems solution. The UCAV weapon system will exploit the design and operational freedoms of relocating the pilot outside of the vehicle to enable a new paradigm in aircraft affordability while maintaining the rationale, judgment, and moral qualities of the human operator. In our vision, this weapon system will require minimal maintenance, can be stored for extended periods of time, and is capable of dynamic mission control while engaging multiple targets in a single mission under minimal human supervision. The UCAV will conduct missions from ordinary airfields as part of an integrated force package complementary to manned tactical and support assets. UCAV controllers will observe rules of engagement and make the critical decisions to use or refrain from using force. ----- ---- The DARPA/Air Force/Boeing X-45A technology demonstration aircraft completed its first flight on 22 May 2002. Multi-aircraft testing will begin in 2003 when a second X-45A becomes operational, leading to joint UCAV and manned exercises in FY 2006. - http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/x-45_ucav.html Perhaps closer than you think? Also see my thoughts on this, go to - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=621074 More importantly, with the probable cost of the F-35 now projected to increase (easily) to $21 BILLION with the first delivery in 8 years (vs NOW)... Oh, and don't forget, we're talking an UNPROVEN airframe, not the best choice among several PROVEN airframes like Canada's purchase of it's F-18s last time... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2011 Report Posted February 5, 2011 ---- The DARPA/Air Force/Boeing X-45A technology demonstration aircraft completed its first flight on 22 May 2002. Multi-aircraft testing will begin in 2003 when a second X-45A becomes operational, leading to joint UCAV and manned exercises in FY 2006. - http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/x-45_ucav.html Perhaps closer than you think? Or farther than you think...don't assume that Canada or any other nation will get these type of aircraft through a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. As you may know, the American F-22 Raptor is not for export to any nation. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
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.