blueblood Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 Cold Lake is a legitimate military target and easily within range for several surface, air, and submarine launched weapons systems. All of Canada is within range for intermediate or strategic ballistic missiles. You'd Think a rogue vessel starting an invasion would save their munitions for more juicy north american targets... That and I figure it would have to be a rogue vessel as it would be easy to spot mobilization of invading forces via satellite. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 You'd Think a rogue vessel starting an invasion would save their munitions for more juicy north american targets... That and I figure it would have to be a rogue vessel as it would be easy to spot mobilization of invading forces via satellite. Not sure what you mean....Cold Lake would be a primary target as defense suppression during a coordinated attack. I do not see any hardened aircraft hangars and the aircraft are parked in the open....easy pickings for cluster munitions. Satellites cannot spot submarines....yet. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted October 30, 2011 Author Report Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Often, Canadian fighters are forward deployed, and it isn't always made public. Edited October 30, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Not sure what you mean....Cold Lake would be a primary target as defense suppression during a coordinated attack. I do not see any hardened aircraft hangars and the aircraft are parked in the open....easy pickings for cluster munitions. Satellites cannot spot submarines....yet. You’re right, no hardened shelters in Cool Pool…….Or Bagotville….The last Canadian base with hardened aircraft shelters and low level air defence was Baden-Soellingen......reason being, there was a threat, unlike in Alberta or Quebec........ Edited October 30, 2011 by Derek L Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 You’re right, no hardened shelters in Cool Pool…….Or Bagotville….The last Canadian base with hardened aircraft shelters and low level air defence was Baden-Soellingen......reason being, there was a threat, unlike in Alberta or Quebec........ Well to be fair, today's PGM's can destroy most hardened shelters anyway. Iraq found that out the hard way. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 Satellites cannot spot submarines....yet. Actually there are a few detection systems out there. Little is known as technology in this field is highly classified, but a few such systems do exist. From the little information I could find, they are very effective in spotting subs in moderately shallow water and less effective and precise in deep water. Considerable research is being done in this field and the technologies are rapidly improving. Of course, as space based anti-satellite technologies become ubiquitous, submarine designers will begin to incorporate appropriate stealth technology. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 Actually there are a few detection systems out there. Little is known as technology in this field is highly classified, but a few such systems do exist. That's why I said "yet". There were lots of such systems and research dollars for the holy grail of ASW....none are as effective as another submarine in the same boundary layer. From the little information I could find, they are very effective in spotting subs in moderately shallow water and less effective and precise in deep water. Considerable research is being done in this field and the technologies are rapidly improving. Of course, as space based anti-satellite technologies become ubiquitous, submarine designers will begin to incorporate appropriate stealth technology. I could explain such systems that were in development and abandoned, and others that were pursued longer by the Soviets/Russians. Then the FBI would promptly arrest me. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
wyly Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 Let me put it this way - an enemy ship wouldn't survive their initial assault. They might fire, but the scrap metal jets would blow them out of the water. DND has planned for all possible scenarios. dream on, DND cannot plan for all scenarios we haven't the money, do we have AWACs? no do we have f22 raptors capable of handling cruise misslies? no...do we have the number of aircraft needed to counter being swamped by multiple waves of cruise missiles? no...do we have the israeli anti missile shield? no...ships launching cruise missiles would be well out of range of any F35 operating from cold lake, as I said, scrap metal...the scenario DND realistically accepts is we cannot defend ourselves against any enemy with those resources, they also know there is no threat to our territory from china or russia...the threat is implied by CPC to justify buying equipment that will be useless defending canada... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 dream on, DND cannot plan for all scenarios we haven't the money, do we have AWACs? no do we have f22 raptors capable of handling cruise misslies? no...do we have the number of aircraft needed to counter being swamped by multiple waves of cruise missiles? no...do we have the israeli anti missile shield? no... That's why you have NORAD...the Americans do have "f22 raptors" with lookdown/shootdown Doppler radar; cruise missiles are subsonic and can be intercepted. ships launching cruise missiles would be well out of range of any F35 operating from cold lake, as I said, scrap metal... Okay, but F-35's are 40% composite materials (carbon fiber and nanotube structures), not just metal! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
wyly Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 During wartime? With modern detection? I think a rogue ship or invading navy would have quite a tough time getting to within 12 miles, let alone pop off a missile both russia and china have cruise missiles that have ranges of 3-4000 km which puts them well out to sea far far out of range of f35s or cf188... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted October 30, 2011 Author Report Posted October 30, 2011 We have a NORAD defence perimiter/detection grid, and mission 1 of the CF is the defence of Canada. If they haven't planned for an invasion attempt by Russia or China, they shouldn't have jobs....and a scrap metal F-35 would be pretty hard on a Russian misle cruiser...combat radius of 1100 km, internal fuel only. Of course, I think we should be buying the C model. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 Well to be fair, today's PGM's can destroy most hardened shelters anyway. Iraq found that out the hard way. I’d think the only true threat to either of our airbases in North America is instant sunshine Quote
Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 That's why I said "yet". There were lots of such systems and research dollars for the holy grail of ASW....none are as effective as another submarine in the same boundary layer. I could explain such systems that were in development and abandoned, and others that were pursued longer by the Soviets/Russians. Then the FBI would promptly arrest me. Really? The subject is still that taboo? SAR/SLAR has been around for decades…… Quote
wyly Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 In this hypothetical north American invasion, wouldn't security be tightened up? the scenario was defending our arctic from certain chinese or russian territorial aggression to steal our oil...this scenario was the justification for buying nuclear submarines and f35s...Cold lake would be pretty hard to hit with a cruise missile by a foreign navy, subs or not. I don't think subs would waste their missiles on cold lake... cold lake is the proverbial sitting duck, cruise missiles are deadly accurate, a visit to google earth will show our airforce nicely lined up for demolition...cold lake is a first strike target as are all air defenses in any war, they are the primary target just as they were in gulf war 1, 2 and libya...the aid nuclear subs will be is if they have nuclear weapons...f35s are useless in the mission unless they're used to protect ground troops, and even then they need air refueling to linger over the area... only boots on the ground project effective sovereignty but there's no glamour in low tech, no one gets a woodie from infantry on snowshoes... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Bonam Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 Really? The subject is still that taboo? SAR/SLAR has been around for decades…… It's not "taboo". The most recent research in military technology is always classified, and those privy to information on that research can face harsh retaliation for leaking it. Quote
Bonam Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 only boots on the ground project effective sovereignty but there's no glamour in low tech, no one gets a woodie from infantry on snowshoes... Start recruiting the same kind of "infantry" as Gaddafi's personal guards and they'll give people a "woodie" Quote
Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 dream on, DND cannot plan for all scenarios we haven't the money, do we have AWACs? Actually, we regularly have crews at Tinker AFB via NORAD. no do we have f22 raptors capable of handling cruise misslies?no...do we have the number of aircraft needed to counter being swamped by multiple waves of cruise missiles? no...do we have the israeli anti missile shield? no... As BC said, through NORAD, we do. As for BMD, we even though PM PM told the Americans to pound sand, it's still there..... ships launching cruise missiles would be well out of range of any F35 operating from cold lake Not from Comox........ he scenario DND realistically accepts is we cannot defend ourselves against any enemy with those resources, they also know there is no threat to our territory from china or russia...the threat is implied by CPC to justify buying equipment that will be useless defending canada... So you're saying there is a potential threat to Canada, but it’s not really there? So which is it? Are we threatened or not? Are you suggesting the CPC developed the PK-55 and not the Soviets? Quote
wyly Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 We have a NORAD defence perimiter/detection grid, and mission 1 of the CF is the defence of Canada. If they haven't planned for an invasion attempt by Russia or China, they shouldn't have jobs....and a scrap metal F-35 would be pretty hard on a Russian misle cruiser...combat radius of 1100 km, internal fuel only. Of course, I think we should be buying the C model. you have issues with math, that range leaves the jf35 well short of cruise missiles launched 3-4000km at sea...never mind that the intial attack would be from submarines which the jf35 will be as effective as throwing rocks... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 It's not "taboo". The most recent research in military technology is always classified, and those privy to information on that research can face harsh retaliation for leaking it. Not if it’s been in the public domain since the late 80s, early 90s. Quote
Smallc Posted October 30, 2011 Author Report Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) you have issues with math, that range leaves the jf35 well short of cruise missiles launched 3-4000km at sea.. You keep getting further and further, don't you? never mind that the intial attack would be from submarines which the jf35 will be as effective as throwing rocks... In this fantasy world of yours, Canada would be operating as part of NORAD...of course, that's also how things happen in the real world. The CF can and will defend the northern half of North America. Attacking NA isn't going to be nearly as easy as you make out. Edited October 30, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 you have issues with math, that range leaves the jf35 well short of cruise missiles launched 3-4000km at sea...never mind that the intial attack would be from submarines which the jf35 will be as effective as throwing rocks... What’s the best defence against a potential sub launched cruise missile attack? Why a Nuclear Submarine……that’s enough justification for me to buy nuc boats, to counter this threat of swarms of Chicom and Russian cruise missiles you speak so highly about….. Quote
Bonam Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 Not if it’s been in the public domain since the late 80s, early 90s. We're not talking about basic SAR. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 You keep getting further and further, don't you? In this fantasy world of yours, Canada would be operating as part of NORAD...of course, that's also how things happen in the real world. The CF can and will defend the northern half of North America. Attacking NA isn't going to be nearly as easy as you make out. Indeed…….the West trembles at the threat of Soviet….err…..Russian cruise missiles……..We had better further spending to avoid a mineshaft gap. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 We're not talking about basic SAR. True, but the concept has been around for decades….. Quote
Bonam Posted October 30, 2011 Report Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) True, but the concept has been around for decades….. Yes but just strapping SAR on a satellite doesn't detect subs. There's a lot more to it. Some of the technologies have nothing at all to do with SAR. They use other detection methods. The "basic concept" for just about everything has been around for decades. The basic concept of how to build a thermonuclear warhead, for example. Doesn't mean that the detailed operation of these warheads is in the public domain. Edited October 30, 2011 by Bonam Quote
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.