wyly Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 If it can't be seen by the aircraft and missles that can destroy it what's your point? your deliberately avoiding other posts...newest russian fighters have L band radar stealth planes are designed to avoid X-band not L-band, stealth planes can also be detected by planes with IR detection...missles also use IR and visual guidence, as well the stealth is optimum only when head on, from the side the tartget is much more detectable, missles fired to either side will find the target...ground radar can relay the stealth planes position to the interceptors...point is and you don't want to recognize, stealth is very expensive...designing technology overcoming stealth is relatively inexpensive, Russian estimates for adding L-band to their planes 1-2 million per plane, latest USA DND estimates for F35 115-130 million...any temporary advantage has will be lost very quickly and we'll have spent a fortune for limited technology on an average plane... Sure it is, these are the kind of conflicts we are most likely to be engaged in. These are the very conditions where stealth will be the most effective.how conflicts in 55yrs has the Canadian air force fighters have been used?? only two that I can think of, minor events and you want to spend how many billions to send a mega dollar super plane against some 3rd rate country once or twice in the next 55yrs?...we lost no planes in the Gulf war and none in Serbia without stealth flying a useless bucket of bolts,a flying death trap, that piece of crap the CF18...ya I'm sure if we'll need a stealth super plane when we end up battling in the Congo or some other frightening super power.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 History must be full of fallacy then ....it's all out there from the day we arrived in Afghanistan until today, we are still replacing kit we should have had before our government and people of Canada sent us over there....The fallacy part is the media covered it all, including all the deaths from IED's, our lack of air support, our lack of helo transport, our lack of direct fire support, our Armoured vehs the entire gambit and none of it would have been replaced until soldiers started coming home in bags.....yes sir that is fallacy....and from the end i was sitting on, you can't bullshit me and say the people wanted the best equipment for our armed forces....when infact they did not no what gear we had in the first place, because it was already to old for battle.... The people, it's funney you talk about people...do the people pick out what fire truck the fire dept get, what type of police cars the RCMP get....but all of sudden we have the people who are experts in military equipment they know exactly what we need and the qty's we need it in....AND shit we don't like to be swindled, great i don't like to be swindled either as a tax payer ...nor do i like my ass getting blown off because we went cheap on some wpn sys.... When was the last time a white papar on defense written....So DND has to base it's 20 to 25 year future plan based on this old document, which clearly spells out what THE PEOPLE expect our our forces to accomplish, it also clearly spells out how much funding is to be made available, what equipment we are to purchase etc etc etc ....The real experts in the case of the F-35 are the Canadian Airforce which has spelled it out for you....of all the aircraft available the F-35 is the one they have chosen after over 10 years of research....it is the aircraft that fulfills all the missions our government and the people have tasked DND with. But Now there is so called experts all across the country demanding we purchase everything from A-10 ground attack planes to Euro fighters....most of these aircraft where looked at in this study, OK maybe not the A-10 ....and turned down....Plus the other options such as Unmanned fighters, to air defense systems where also looked at ... And because you don't understand or have not read the study, or our government has done a shitty job once again in explaining why we have chosen the F-35 ....the People decide they are being swindled....and some fat airforce gen is getting a big check for selling the F-35.....not true.... History must be full of fallacy then ....it's all out there from the day we arrived in Afghanistan until today, we are still replacing kit we should have had before our government and people of Canada sent us over there.... The US had that same problem in Iraq and they have a trillion dollar budget. And mega purchases like this are the main reason why. Massive purchases like this divert money away everything else. You end up with aircraft that cost a quarter of a billion dollars each, and soldiers that dont have proper body armor, night vision goggles or armored Humvees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 The US had that same problem in Iraq and they have a trillion dollar budget. And mega purchases like this are the main reason why. Massive purchases like this divert money away everything else. You end up with aircraft that cost a quarter of a billion dollars each, and soldiers that dont have proper body armor, night vision goggles or armored Humvees. It is a balancing act for sure, however, regardless of what aircraft we purchase gen 4 or 5 the cost is going to be massive, and what is scewing this project is the 20 year maint costs,...The US military is much more practiced at balancing their equipment than we will ever be , and i don't think they will slash their military spending to the bone for over 10 years and hope the problem will fix itself...Canadians will sooner or later have to deal with that question ? what is the true cost of starving the military and can we afford to fix it later....or re write a white paper and scale down what it is Canada wants it's military to do....to better fit it's budget.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 what is the true cost of starving the military and can we afford to fix it later....or re write a white paper and scale down what it is Canada wants it's military to do....to better fit it's budget.... I'm not sure where you get this. We now spend almost $22B per year. That's more than double what the budget was 10 short years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 (edited) Me and some of my colleges where discussing our military carears today, and all of have but a few regrets but the only one that had a common thread was this....How tight the Canadian people where with there defense dollars....how just how little they give a shit about the equipment they are willing to give our troops....... And this never really sank in until it was explained to me by a politician....if you can beleive that....infact it was even made public not so long ago by a government beaucrat at veterns affairs....a soldiers life is equated in dollars....it cost one years wages , the price of a funeral, and SSIP benifits paid out approx 250 k per soldier....see it is cheaper to have a soldier come back in a bag....than injured, or to pay for new equipment.....Thats our regret...when did that happen when did lifes become 2 and fiddle to funds... I understand it takes alot to run this country and right now defense is not on the top of the list.... AG, the difference between men and boys is that their toys are more expensive. And soldiers too often prepare for the next war as if they were fighting the last war.Over half of our casualties in Afghanistan (and I say "our" with the full knowledge that others were taking the risk, not me) were due to IEDs. Our current government wants to spend billions on F-35 jet fighters. Why? Harper and DND remind me of Poland in 1935 forming cavalry regiments. Maybe we should buy Predators, or invest in technology to detect car bombs. [AG, we discussed this is in another thread. If I recall, you said that DND had new technology/intelligence methods to manage IEDs. Are F-35s the new technology/intelligence?] ---- The cost of a life in Canada is about $10 million, or $15 million. What does this mean? It is worth spending about $10 million to prevent death, but not more. Live with it. ---- Defence not top of the list? I happen to think that the federal government should concentrate its efforts on matters of the Confederation - including defence. Canada has treaty obligations. Willy nilly, this federal government is doing that. Edited October 31, 2010 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 It can also be said that this government is doing a number of things, none of them well. I simply can't believe we are debating this subject, when damned near every citizen of this nation knows we cannot defend our own borders. It is foolish to believe that we should ignore this fact and focus instead on our "treaty" obligations and our pathetic attempts at force projection around the globe. Every time we do get involved, it seems we are sending our citizens into harms way virtually unprepared for the situation they were sent to deal with. This nation lacks a sense of identity and with that a political will and functional purpose. Blame for this egregious national misconduct lays at our own feet. We need to come together as a nation, design and build a national defense infrastructure, merely to provide the national security of a free society. There is so damned much nation building needed in Canada that only the political leadership can be looked to for answers. Should this nation ever get its game together then we may discuss how we choose to use our military as an extension of our own foreign policy. Its just that one little fly in the ointment. We need a visionary leader to guide our steps forward. A really good leader will define a path that would serve to create the international identity that we desire. Its what we a really talking about here folks, the near complete lack of identity that this nation has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 1, 2010 Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 I'm not sure where you get this. We now spend almost $22B per year. That's more than double what the budget was 10 short years ago. I was reffing to the so called Decade of darkness, and while it's great that we are spending 22 bil , my question is this , is it enough to make up for all the short falls created during those lean years...in my opinion no it's not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted November 1, 2010 Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 I was reffing to the so called Decade of darkness, and while it's great that we are spending 22 bil , my question is this , is it enough to make up for all the short falls created during those lean years...in my opinion no it's not... That is because we have no idea what we are doing. We need to be able to defend the homeland first. Much more money is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 1, 2010 Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 That is because we have no idea what we are doing. We need to be able to defend the homeland first. Much more money is needed. I'd prefer money spent on more practical needs in regards to border security like Ice breakers and Naval patrol ships, submarines that work...uber technology like F35's are of questionable value... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 1, 2010 Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 That is because we have no idea what we are doing. We need to be able to defend the homeland first. Much more money is needed. Have no fear...Underdog is here! The greatest weapon is a balanced budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 1, 2010 Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 I'd prefer money spent on more practical needs in regards to border security like Ice breakers and Naval patrol ships, submarines that work...uber technology like F35's are of questionable value... Ice breakers and coastal patrol boats the navy has already said it does not need, those where chosen by the party in charge....because that is what they thought we needed...no mention to ice harden frigs or destroyers something most northern countries have. Ice breakers are a coast guard function, arming it with a small platform gun is just a waste of money, ever seen a ice breaker in action, try dodgeing a missle at 2 or 3 knots , shit a guy on the ice pack could sink it with an RPG....Coastal patrol boats where brought up as a cost cutting measure to cut down on the time our frigates where on fisheries patrol,or assisting our governmental debts....if we had a coast gaurd similar to the US the naval would not need small patrol boats.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 1, 2010 Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 Ice breakers and coastal patrol boats the navy has already said it does not need, those where chosen by the party in charge....because that is what they thought we needed...no mention to ice harden frigs or destroyers something most northern countries have. Ice breakers are a coast guard function, arming it with a small platform gun is just a waste of money, ever seen a ice breaker in action, try dodgeing a missle at 2 or 3 knots , shit a guy on the ice pack could sink it with an RPG....Coastal patrol boats where brought up as a cost cutting measure to cut down on the time our frigates where on fisheries patrol,or assisting our governmental debts....if we had a coast gaurd similar to the US the naval would not need small patrol boats.... Arming CCG vessels is just idiotic. Our CCG is NOT a military operation. Just plopping a gun on the deck would not make it one. The CCG can do SAR, oceanography and fisheries science. The government is going to plop some guns on board to make it look like we are defending the arctic, when in reality it would take the navy to do that. It's expensive to properly defend the arctic.... so let's just make it LOOK like we are.... http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/CCG/Mission CCG’s mandate is stated in the Oceans Act and the Canada Shipping Act. The Oceans Act gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans responsibility for providing: •aids to navigation; •marine communications and traffic management services; •icebreaking and ice-management services; •channel maintenance; •marine search and rescue; •marine pollution response; and •support of other government departments, boards and agencies by providing ships, aircraft and other services. The Canada Shipping Act gives the Minister powers, responsibilities and obligations concerning: •aids to navigation; •Sable Island; •search and rescue; •pollution response; and •vessel traffic services. Note that their madate does NOT include protecting Canada's sovereignty. This is because they are not equipped to do so in terms of ships, personnell or training. There is no training in the CCG on how or when to sink a foreign vessel. THere is no training to board potentially hostile ships... Are we going to arm them with small arms as well? THis gov't is nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 1, 2010 Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 Coastal patrol boats where brought up as a cost cutting measure to cut down on the time our frigates where on fisheries patrol,or assisting our governmental debts.. What fisheries were those? In 25 years of fishing on BC's coast I've never once seen a Navy frigate patrolling me. ..if we had a coast gaurd similar to the US the naval would not need small patrol boats.... Instead we rolled the Coast Guard into DFO, the same agency that pretty much mismanaged most of the fisheries on two of our three coasts into near oblivion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 1, 2010 Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 Ice breakers and coastal patrol boats the navy has already said it does not need, those where chosen by the party in charge....because that is what they thought we needed...no mention to ice harden frigs or destroyers something most northern countries have. we have ice harden frigates?...not that I'm aware of...Ice breakers are a coast guard function, arming it with a small platform gun is just a waste of money, ever seen a ice breaker in action, try dodgeing a missle at 2 or 3 knots , shit a guy on the ice pack could sink it with an RPG....Coastal patrol boats where brought up as a cost cutting measure to cut down on the time our frigates where on fisheries patrol,or assisting our governmental debts....if we had a coast gaurd similar to the US the naval would not need small patrol boats....well the navy doesn't get to decide it's mission the people do....it needs more smaller coastal patrol ships we don't need to send out a frigate to stop and search a fishing boat...coast guard aren't meant to tackle warships, a coast guard ship with a deck gun is more than sufficient to stop any shipping traffic other than military...and for establishing sovereignty in the arctic a CG ship is a million times more effective than a F35 flying by for a few seconds at 30,000 ft, do you think that F35 pilot is going to land his plane on the ice board some oil leaking super tanker... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 What fisheries were those? In 25 years of fishing on BC's coast I've never once seen a Navy frigate patrolling me. Take a look at how many hours of operation our navy spends on Fisheries patrol...compared to actually patroling our coast lines or on true naval tasks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 we have ice harden frigates?...not that I'm aware of... That was my piont, instead this government decided to spend funds on giving the Navy an armed Ice Breaker, and a bunch of coastal patrol boats....and yet the Navy was asking for Ice hardened Frigs or destroyers.... well the navy doesn't get to decide it's mission the people do.... No the govenment of the day gets to do that...And that needs to be done in line with set out policys and defense reviews... it needs more smaller coastal patrol ships we don't need to send out a frigate to stop and search a fishing boat No the Navy is not designed or set up to perform this function either, it is either a Coast Gaurd or DFO function, to stop and board fishing ves.... ...coast guard aren't meant to tackle warships, a coast guard ship with a deck gun is more than sufficient to stop any shipping traffic other than military... Never say they were, What i said is an Ice Breaker is a coast guard job, and function....it has no known function within our military or navy....plucking a deck gun on it does not make it a naval ship, and for establishing sovereignty in the arctic a CG ship is a million times more effective than a F35 flying by for a few seconds at 30,000 ft, do you think that F35 pilot is going to land his plane on the ice board some oil leaking super tanker... No but an F-35 is a tool in the box in regards to force escalation, when the coast guard can't stop a ship an F-35 does make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 That was my piont, instead this government decided to spend funds on giving the Navy an armed Ice Breaker, and a bunch of coastal patrol boats....and yet the Navy was asking for Ice hardened Frigs or destroyers.... Ice breakers is what is needed not hardened ships, another waste of funds...No the govenment of the day gets to do that...And that needs to be done in line with set out policys and defense reviews...democracy 101, the government represents the people, the people decide...No the Navy is not designed or set up to perform this function either, it is either a Coast Gaurd or DFO function, to stop and board fishing ves....sorry, if we're paying taxes to support the Navy that does bugger all but play war games for 99.999% of it's time then I want them making themselves useful, costal, fishery and security patrols, whatever we need...and if their ships are too big and impractical for patrol duty then we need smaller ships...Never say they were, What i said is an Ice Breaker is a coast guard job, and function....it has no known function within our military or navy....plucking a deck gun on it does not make it a naval ship, seems to work for the USA...the coast guard actually works full time the navy basically does very little most of the time...No but an F-35 is a tool in the box in regards to force escalation, when the coast guard can't stop a ship an F-35 does make sense.the F35 cannot stop a ship from entering our arctic waters...do you suggest that we and board sink a fuel laden ship in ecologically sensitive waters? do suggest we sink an american ship that ignores our warnings? only a ship can stop and board another ship without sinking it...if we only wanted to sink it we could strap a missile to an old Tudor and it would do the job as well as an F35 for a $100 million less... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 seems to work for the USA...the coast guard actually works full time the navy basically does very little most of the time... You seem to be unclear of the differences between the US coast gaurd and the Canadian, for one thing, the US coast gaurd is militarized...unless you are willing to spend biullions upgrading, training and repurposing the Canadian coast gaurd, comparisons of this sort only display how little you know about the subjects you participate in. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a branch of the United States armed forces and one of seven uniformed services. The Coast Guard is a maritime, military, multi-mission service unique among the military branches for having a maritime law enforcement mission (with jurisdiction in both domestic and international waters) and a federal regulatory agency mission as part of its mission set. It operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, and can be transferred to the Department of the Navy by the President or Congress during time of war.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_class_cutter The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) (French: Garde côtière canadienne - GCC) is the coast guard of Canada. It is a federal agency responsible for providing maritime search and rescue (SAR), aids to navigation, marine pollution response, marine radio, and icebreaking. Unlike some other coast guards, such as the United States Coast Guard, the CCG is a civilian organisation with no military or law enforcement responsibilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Coast_Guard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 the F35 cannot stop a ship from entering our arctic waters...do you suggest that we and board sink a fuel laden ship in ecologically sensitive waters? do suggest we sink an american ship that ignores our warnings? only a ship can stop and board another ship without sinking it...if we only wanted to sink it we could strap a missile to an old Tudor and it would do the job as well as an F35 for a $100 million less... It can stop a ship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM Your dream that an icebreaker speeding along at 5Kts will is amusing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) no it doesn't, it's advantage will be lost very quickly it gave up superior flight technology for stealth which will be overcome sooner than later... Every technology is overcome sooner or later. What's your point? The F-35 is still hugely more agile than the F-18E that you advocate, and current and future fighter doctrine emphasizes BVR (beyond visual range) advantages. No fighters out there right now can outmaneuver the best AA missiles, so first detection is critical. I found this on a technical assesment on the F22 Ahh...This should be good...another one of your deeply researched "technical assessments". "Stealth was not fully achieved because in being the largest fighter in the sky it is the most visible. It is visible to infrared sensors and identifiable by its sound. Its radar can be sensed by high-tech Russian sensors. Its radar signature is admittedly small in the forward quarter but only to airborne radars. The aircraft is detectable by high-power, low-frequency ground based radars." low-frquency, L band radar which is now in the newest Russian planes SU T50 and the L-Band upgrade cost for existing planes is expected only to cost 1-2 million per plane... As expected, you haven't referenced this. Second, do you know what L-Band radar even means? Look it up. It's a giant wavelength and it's so imprecise you'd practically need a nuke to hit a fighter guided by L-Band. Infrared has better chances, but at present there's not enough range on them to matter. Finally, you do realize that the T50 is also a stealth craft right? I mean, if they had tech that can make stealth obsolete, why are they building stealth planes? Chew on that for a minute. Edited November 2, 2010 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) Every technology is overcome sooner or later. What's your point? The F-35 is still hugely more agile than the F-18E that you advocate, and current and future fighter doctrine emphasizes BVR (beyond visual range) advantages. No fighters out there right now can outmaneuver the best AA missiles, so first detection is critical. didn't help the F22 vs the Typhoon...what's my point we don't need the F35 to do anything the Super Hornet can't do at half the price...Ahh...This should be good...another one of your deeply researched "technical assessments".As expected, you haven't referenced this. Second, do you know what L-Band radar even means? Look it up. It's a giant wavelength and it's so imprecise you'd practically need a nuke to hit a fighter guided by L-Band. and you have referenced what? that's right nothing...all you have is opinion...and you know what they say about opinions? they're like arsholes, everyone has one...Infrared has better chances, but at present there's not enough range on them to matter. and the Russians and Eu have personally given you the true specs on their systems Finally, you do realize that the T50 is also a stealth craft right? I mean, if they had tech that can make stealth obsolete, why are they building stealth planes? Finally you do realize the Russians as well as the europeans consider stealth as secondary importance right? the T50 and Typhoon are only partially stealth for a reason right? I mean, you realize stealth is of temporary advantage against low tech opposition, flying capability is still their primary goal... chew on that for a day or week or as long as it takes to comprehend it...a year? Edited November 3, 2010 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Take a look at how many hours of operation our navy spends on Fisheries patrol...compared to actually patroling our coast lines or on true naval tasks... Where? They must still be out off Newfoundland chasing the Spanish around or something. I've never seen or even heard of navy frigates pulling over fishermen and searching their holds or anything like that off BC's coast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Also, it's my understanding that we do fisheries patrols off of our costs. That would mean that we're...patrolling the coast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Also, it's my understanding that we do fisheries patrols off of our costs. That would mean that we're...patrolling the coast. They sure must have a good cloaking device. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 (edited) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/canadas-naval-fleet/article1775793/?from=1775775 Two Destroyers done in 7 years 3 subs..10 years 2 Tenders...4 years 12 frigates---12 years This is why I favour an economic model to building a marine force. http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/nationalsecurity_files/maritimepolicy.htm Canada is of a size and such vast coastline that it needs to just use more sensors and "auxillary craft" there is no reason to take them at sea when there are missles that can do the same thing without having people floating on water. Or even coastal rail guns. Tradition yeah I know, none the less having modular based ships is the way... it would work but it would be an economic model. Like get subs that do commercial contracting on pipelines. Get frigates that also trawl etc.. get them to generate income instead of just suck money from tax payers. - Because of the nature of modern ANTISHIP MISSLES - I am guessing those boats are sitting ducks. - and boats cost more than missiles. They will do what they do but there are only two scenarios - I'd like to see module based convertable cargos/tankers and trawlers -- subs that can be contracted for commercial underwater operations, etc.. the military should generate income, including the navy - and it doesn't mean their mission has to be degraded in doing so - it actually increases capitalization and creates atleast some margin ROI. Injection based militaries are not fair to the public. We need a more economic model but not a cheaper one. This goes into my plan to launch a WAR ON DEBT There are huge potentials income generation in secure shipping in some trouble spots even one or two secure cargos might be self funding and it doesn't mean they can't be equiped or able to be equiped.. more or less turn the CRN into a merchant marine but able to be armed. I'm not a 25 year defence expert just an armchair person but it is what makes sense to me given Canada's primary role as a supply non fleet nation. Edited November 3, 2010 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.