Shwa Posted November 19, 2011 Report Posted November 19, 2011 No...Parliament. Right. Without politicians there is no... Parliament. Quote
wyly Posted November 19, 2011 Report Posted November 19, 2011 this is a hell of a lot of money to be spending on 65 jet fighters. can we really justify spending this in the current climate economically? and they aren't even capable of communicating in the arctic zone because of technology issues. and if technological adjustments are made to the aircraft to improve communications(adding a external pod) it loses it's stealth ability... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Wilber Posted November 19, 2011 Report Posted November 19, 2011 and if technological adjustments are made to the aircraft to improve communications(adding a external pod) it loses it's stealth ability... Who knows how much an external pod would compromise its stealth ability. Are there any other aircraft available that have stealth capability and have the same com capability without an external pod? An advantage to using an external pod is that it would only have to be carried on high arctic patrols. It could be removed for ops in lower latitudes. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
William Ashley Posted November 19, 2011 Report Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) Who knows how much an external pod would compromise its stealth ability. Are there any other aircraft available that have stealth capability and have the same com capability without an external pod? An advantage to using an external pod is that it would only have to be carried on high arctic patrols. It could be removed for ops in lower latitudes. If the us kills its f35 program canada is better off rushing development on a cf18 type clone totally made in canada price at 30-50million per unit do uo 100 at 5 billion then divert the rest of the funding into rail guns and stealth mirv sams and iron domes with arctic maritime urban and rural mods the only thing that madre the f35 economic was the fact it was the jsf for norad and nato, without us buyin it is a waste of money http://www.canada.com/news/Defence+Secretary+Panetta+denies+plans+bail/5733373/story.html raptor upgrade? Edited November 19, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
wyly Posted November 19, 2011 Report Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) Who knows how much an external pod would compromise its stealth ability. Are there any other aircraft available that have stealth capability and have the same com capability without an external pod? An advantage to using an external pod is that it would only have to be carried on high arctic patrols. It could be removed for ops in lower latitudes. stealth planes keep weapon systems internally as soon as you hang missiles on the outside the stealth ability is lost, the same would apply to communications pods, what's the point of uber expensive stealth if you can't use it, might as well buy far less expensive options like the super hornet...at lower latitudes we have no need of stealth in canada as no other nation has any fighters with the range to reach to reach us, only the US has that capability as our neighbour and if it the US decided to attack us 65 planes would do nothing to help us they(and their bases) would be eliminated in the first day...this is a first strike aircraft and first strikes is something canadians do not do, if we're concerned with sovereignty there are better technical and more economical choices... Edited November 19, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Wilber Posted November 19, 2011 Report Posted November 19, 2011 stealth planes keep weapon systems internally as soon as hangs missiles on the outside the stealth ability is lost, the same would apply to communications pods, what's the point of uber expensive stealth if you can't use it, might as well buy far less expensive options like the super hornet... Any compromise to the aircrafts stealth capability would only apply when it was required to carry the pod (high latitudes). How much loss could only be determined by research and experimentation. Any compromise would only exist when radar waves are actually striking the pod, so how it is mounted would determine what detection angles would be compromised by the pods location. To date we have never used our aircraft in a war zone where this com capability was required. No such capability was required in the Balkans, Gulf, or Libya but stealth would have definitely been an asset in all those conflicts. The high arctic is only one area where this aircraft will be used over its lifetime and almost certainly not the most dangerous theater it will ever see. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 19, 2011 Report Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) Who knows how much an external pod would compromise its stealth ability. Are there any other aircraft available that have stealth capability and have the same com capability without an external pod? An advantage to using an external pod is that it would only have to be carried on high arctic patrols. It could be removed for ops in lower latitudes. Yes...the F-22 is designed to actively manage emissions control (EMCON) at progressive levels of RF "stealth", with lowest range RF emissions being the goal. There is a tactical data link for friendlies in the sortie. It does not need an external "pod" for non-tactical radio communications. The EMCON modes are (highest to lowest profile) - EMCON 1 - The radar is off. - The AMRAAM is disabled. - The IRST is the primary on board detection system with a range of 50 miles. It can be used to target and launch the Sidewinder air-to-air missile, and the Maverick Air-to-Ground missile. - The Radar Homing And Warning is on to a range of 50 miles. (RHAW warns of enemy radar activity, tracks and classifies the source). - The Missile Approach and Warning is on. (The MAW warns of enemy missile launches). - The Communications radio is prevented from transmitting. - The secure data link is set to receive. - Countermeasures are disabled. EMCON 2 - The radar is on, and is able to ID and track air-to-air contacts only. - The AMRAAM is disabled, but the missile steering circle information is now displayed on the Air-to-Air HUD. - The IRST is on with a range of 50 miles. It can be used to target and launch the Sidewinder air-to-air missile, and the Maverick Air-to-Ground missile. - The RHAW is on to a range of 100 miles. (The RHAW warns of enemy radar activity, tracks and classifies the source). - The MAW is on. (The MAW warns of enemy missile launches). - The Communications radio is fully on. EMCON 3 - The radar is on, and is able to ID, track, and target air-to-air contacts. - The AMRAAM is now enabled. - The IRST is on with a range of 50 miles. It can be used to target and launch the Sidewinder air-to-air missile, and the Maverick Air-to-Ground missile. - The RHAW is on to a range of 150 miles. (The RHAW warns of enemy radar activity, tracks and classifies the source). - The MAW is on. (The MAW warns of enemy missile launches). - The Communications radio is fully on. EMCON 4 - The radar is on, and is able to ID, track, and target air-to-air contacts. - The AMRAAM is enabled. - The radar is also able to ID track and target large ground mobile, and ship targets. - The IRST is on with a range of 50 miles. It can be used to target and launch the Sidewinder air-to-air missile, and the Maverick Air-to-Ground missile. - The RHAW is on to a range of 200 miles. (The RHAW warns of enemy radar activity, tracks and classifies the source). - The MAW is on. (The MAW warns of enemy missile launches). - The ability to manually launch drones, and chaff is enabled. - The Communications radio is fully on. EMCON 5 - The radar is on, and is able to ID, track, and target air-to-air contacts. - The AMRAAM is enabled - The radar is able to ID track and target all ground mobile, and ship targets. Air-to-Ground missiles requiring radar for targeting (Harpoon) are enabled for launch. - The IRST is on with a range of 50 miles. It can be used to target and launch the Sidewinder air-to-air missile, and the Maverick Air-to-Ground missile. - The RHAW is on to a range of 250 miles. (The RHAW warns of enemy radar activity, tracks and classifies the source). - The MAW is fully on. (The MAW warns of enemy missile launches). The defensive suite of drones, ECM chaff, and flares is fully enabled. - The Communications radio is fully on. Edited November 20, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted November 19, 2011 Report Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) It does not need an external "pod" for non-tactical radio communications. You sure. We are talking specifically north of 70 degrees with no AWAC's support. Edited November 19, 2011 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 19, 2011 Report Posted November 19, 2011 You sure. We are talking specifically north of 70 degrees with no AWAC's support. Yes, I am sure within the defined capabilities of UHF/VHF communications transceivers and power limitations. The F-22 Raptor has a software based communications, navigation, and ID (CNI) system as part of the basic avionics suite. It is being upgraded to the newer JTRS to close gaps and support a "net-centric" approach to tactical communications, but yea, it still has a basic radio subject to EMCOM level during missions. As you know, such avionics suites are very complex and constantly being upgraded for secure voice/data and resistance to jamming. This aspect of tactical communications has long been a sore spot for Canada's CF-18's (e.g. latest Link 16 compatibility). You may own (as I do), a software based communications receiver...fascinating toys. Mine is a basic Icom PCR-1500: http://www.icomamerica.com/en/products/receivers/pc/pcr1500/default.aspx Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted November 20, 2011 Report Posted November 20, 2011 Yes, I am sure within the defined capabilities of UHF/VHF communications transceivers and power limitations. The F-22 Raptor has a software based communications, navigation, and ID (CNI) system as part of the basic avionics suite. It is being upgraded to the newer JTRS to close gaps and support a "net-centric" approach to tactical communications, but yea, it still has a basic radio subject to EMCOM level during missions. As you know, such avionics suites are very complex and constantly being upgraded for secure voice/data and resistance to jamming. This aspect of tactical communications has long been a sore spot for Canada's CF-18's (e.g. latest Link 16 compatibility). You may own (as I do), a software based communications receiver...fascinating toys. Mine is a basic Icom PCR-1500: http://www.icomamerica.com/en/products/receivers/pc/pcr1500/default.aspx Indeed the JSF, like the Super Hornet and our current Hornets were upgraded with, is equipped with the Link 16 tactical data link package, which is today’s benchmark…….What the “perceived controversy” is over, is that, Link 22, which will complement Link 16 and enable a more secure and stealth form of communication, and more importantly, vastly improve the transfer of information, both in terms of rate and volume……It won’t be fully fielded until later this decade on the F-35 (and F-22 & B-2)….And as was just noted in the media, the last squadron of Hornets (425 TFS) won’t convert to CF-35s until the early 2020s……What do you want to bet, 425 squadron, will be fulfilling our NORAD NORPATS during this time… Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 20, 2011 Report Posted November 20, 2011 ....What the “perceived controversy” is over, is that, Link 22, which will complement Link 16 and enable a more secure and stealth form of communication, and more importantly, vastly improve the transfer of information, both in terms of rate and volume……It won’t be fully fielded until later this decade on the F-35 (and F-22 & B-2)…. OK, but I don't know why it is a controversy now. The tactical voice and data requirements have mushroomed with the desire for integrated, secure communications for all partners, not just Canada. They even have to collect, store, and transmit image data for real time BDA and intel collection. The US and allies are trying to get to a complete air-sea-ground solution to increase coordination and, quite frankly, reduce friendly fire screw ups. And as was just noted in the media, the last squadron of Hornets (425 TFS) won’t convert to CF-35s until the early 2020s……What do you want to bet, 425 squadron, will be fulfilling our NORAD NORPATS during this time… Sound fine to me....complaining about short term tactical data links shortcomings is just a red herring like two engines needed for "The Arctic". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted November 20, 2011 Report Posted November 20, 2011 OK, but I don't know why it is a controversy now. The tactical voice and data requirements have mushroomed with the desire for integrated, secure communications for all partners, not just Canada. They even have to collect, store, and transmit image data for real time BDA and intel collection. The US and allies are trying to get to a complete air-sea-ground solution to increase coordination and, quite frankly, reduce friendly fire screw ups. I agree, it’s a non story……..but having it as another attack talking point for the opposition is always handy……Harper’s super stealth ATTACK bombers won’t be able to communicate, stealthy like, in the artic until after 2019, to add our order won’t be fully delivered until ~2023.…..Makes sense to me Sound fine to me....complaining about short term tactical data links shortcomings is just a red herring like two engines needed for "The Arctic". Exactly....How many F-16s did you lose over the arctic, due to them having a single engine? How many did Norway and Denmark lose? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 20, 2011 Report Posted November 20, 2011 ....Exactly....How many F-16s did you lose over the arctic, due to them having a single engine? How many did Norway and Denmark lose? F-16 losses are not unusual and the US has lost over 350 alone. Looking at Norway's hull losses at F-16.net (best damn site of its kind I might say), we can see that bird strikes / engine ingestion is a much more pressing concern. I see one specific engine flame out without restart on the list. So one could argue that two engines are better for bird strikes, but how many birds are in the Arctic? http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/airforce/RNOAF/ Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted November 20, 2011 Report Posted November 20, 2011 F-16 losses are not unusual and the US has lost over 350 alone. Looking at Norway's hull losses at F-16.net (best damn site of its kind I might say), we can see that bird strikes / engine ingestion is a much more pressing concern. I see one specific engine flame out without restart on the list. So one could argue that two engines are better for bird strikes, but how many birds are in the Arctic? http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/airforce/RNOAF/ Another couple of partial strawmen…….look at the location of the intakes on a modern fighter, be it a Hornet or Eurofighter for example, both relatively close, so flying through a flock of birds, there is a good possibility of “ingesting” birds in one or both intakes and affecting both engines……Also, bird strikes, tend to occur at relatively lower levels of flight, namely landing and takeoff……. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted November 20, 2011 Report Posted November 20, 2011 Another couple of partial strawmen…….look at the location of the intakes on a modern fighter, be it a Hornet or Eurofighter for example, both relatively close, so flying through a flock of birds, there is a good possibility of “ingesting” birds in one or both intakes and affecting both engines……Also, bird strikes, tend to occur at relatively lower levels of flight, namely landing and takeoff……. To add from your link: Suffered a collision with a goose and crashed at Lake Tunhovd, Norway. The pilot, Morten Køpke, ejected with minor injuries. Not the incident with the bird being ingested, but could a Hornet or Eurofighter also survive such a collision? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 20, 2011 Report Posted November 20, 2011 To add from your link: Not the incident with the bird being ingested, but could a Hornet or Eurofighter also survive such a collision? I don't know, but would agree that bird strikes/engine ingestions can bring down most any such aircraft. Just ask Captain Sullenberger! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted November 20, 2011 Report Posted November 20, 2011 I don't know, but would agree that bird strikes/engine ingestions can bring down most any such aircraft. Just ask Captain Sullenberger! But Sully had two engines Quote
William Ashley Posted November 21, 2011 Report Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) but how many birds are in the Arctic? lots there are nesting grounds for birds, one if the few animals that live up there, you havn't read your arctic survival books like us airman survival manuals have you? http://arctic.fws.gov/birdlist.htm Edited November 21, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 21, 2011 Report Posted November 21, 2011 you havn't read your arctic survival books like us airman survival manuals have you? http://arctic.fws.gov/birdlist.htm LOL! American reference...as usual. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
William Ashley Posted November 21, 2011 Report Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) LOL! American reference...as usual. who else is gonna crash up there Russia could send its bears and canada wouldn't have enough oc to fend them off, it is redundant it isn't "rounded out". Camada needs to invest in arctic drones, missles and railguns," I don't get why those investments arn't on the radar only strike fighter bombers, It screams we be jammin, Edited November 21, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 21, 2011 Report Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) it isn't "rounded out". Camada needs to invest in arctic drones, missles and railguns," Canada doesn't appear to have any significant military presence in the territories. Northern most base looks to be Goose Bay. http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/images&downloads/downloads_maps_canadian_forces_bases.html The Americans have nine military bases in Alaska. That's why they have a better web site for birds! Edited November 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
William Ashley Posted November 21, 2011 Report Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) Canada doesn't appear to have any significant military presence in the territories. Northern most base looks to be Goose Bay. http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/images&downloads/downloads_maps_canadian_forces_bases.html The Americans have nine military bases in Alaska. That's why they have a better web site for birds! Thats why you have aircraft too, Its not like Canadians can see Russia from their house! Atleast they are starting to move on my arctic balloons idea. Alert is the northern most base goose bay is a nato training facility or was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFS_Alert http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6584301 there are others plus http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1024675--star-exclusive-canada-looking-at-building-military-bases-in-arctic (the answer is genetic engineering of tauntauns, or animal husbandry of muskox) only return if the jedi fans want that placement. ps canadian rangers arn't texan green hatted mimics they are pretty much every willing nirthern native with a gun, they wear red uniforms to help them hide in the arctic, either that or nit go blind see esquimaux http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/30/the-canadian-ranger-rifle-project Edited November 21, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Moonbox Posted November 21, 2011 Report Posted November 21, 2011 here's a history lesson for ya jr...french occupation of indochina was colonial and it was imperialistic(do a google if you don't know the definition of two concepts)... The US involvement in Vietnam was neither imperialistic nor colonial. It was idealogical and at no point were they interested in occupation or subjugation. They just didn't want to see communism spread any further. the war with the south was a civil war, a reunification of north and south ironically just like the US civil war... Except the US civil war didn't occur in a third world butthole, and one side wasn't massively supported with arms from one of the world's largest powers. To say the North Vietnamese invasion of the South was just a 'civil war' is beyond dumb. you know what gives me awesome wood moonbox??? The sound of your own ranting? .. schooling people in history....consider yourself spanked and schooled... Oh...that's too bad. You must not get a lot of 'exercise' then.... 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
Ralph Posted November 21, 2011 Report Posted November 21, 2011 Im sorry, but why so vindictive? Are you so entrenched in your ideology that you can't believe he is doing what he thinks is right for the country? I mean really, putting him in his place? What exactly does that mean? Honestly that's a really silly comment, you can disagree with him, i surely don't agree with him on everything, but you actually seem to hate the man, just what has he done to garner that hatred aside from doing things that he thinks are right and that you don't agree with? Do you hate Chretien? Do you think he did things for his reasons or for yours? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted November 21, 2011 Report Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) ...the war with the south was a civil war, a reunification of north and south ironically just like the US civil war... No...Viet-Nam was a war between two seperate states and a proxy war between Seato and the Warsaw Pact. Edited November 21, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
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.