Signals.Cpl Posted December 26, 2012 Report Share Posted December 26, 2012 We cant afford to prepare for the worst. The "worst" is an invasion by a major foreign power with thousands of planes, cruise missiles, ICBM's, or whatever. This is basic risk management. Canada cannot afford to insure itself against every possible threat, so we first need to make sure our basic needs are taken care of, then we need to insure against as many of the likely disaster scenarios as possible, then tackle a few of the unlikely scenarios if we still have money left.Yeah and in this case we are preparing for the worst by purchasing 65 aircraft, having 20 aircraft means that at one point or another we would have 12-14 aircraft available due to refit and machine losses, of the remaining 12 you can find yourself with 3-4 more in maintenance being repaired which means that we would have 8 fighters defending the entire country. How do you propose we deal with the Russian airforce which periodically visits us up north and show them the way out while also providing aircraft for coverage of the rest of Canada? Is it worth saving 5 billion over 30 years only to leave a significant gap in our defences and pray that we don't find out how bad we screwed ourselves. We either invest enough to defend ourselves properly or don't bother at all.Well I was proposing only a partial replacement of manned aircraft with drones. We could still procure a manned aircraft in smaller numbers as well. And we won't be able to do the same job while only cutting a small % of the spending. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 26, 2012 Report Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) Yeah and in this case we are preparing for the worst by purchasing 65 aircraft, having 20 aircraft means that at one point or another we would have 12-14 aircraft available due to refit and machine losses, of the remaining 12 you can find yourself with 3-4 more in maintenance being repaired which means that we would have 8 fighters defending the entire country. How do you propose we deal with the Russian airforce which periodically visits us up north and show them the way out while also providing aircraft for coverage of the rest of Canada? Is it worth saving 5 billion over 30 years only to leave a significant gap in our defences and pray that we don't find out how bad we screwed ourselves. We either invest enough to defend ourselves properly or don't bother at all. And we won't be able to do the same job while only cutting a small % of the spending. Those are your opinions as a supporter of this purchase. They are entirely subjective and arbitrary. This is exactly why I said.... if we go through a proper procurement process, and publish a cost benefit analysis of all the various options, then we can attach some real numbers to those things. How do you propose we deal with the Russian airforce which periodically visits us up north and show them the way out while also providing aircraft for coverage of the rest of Canada? Like I said Drones can fly most of those patrols. I never said we would only have 20 aircraft. Edited December 26, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 26, 2012 Report Share Posted December 26, 2012 At this point, other than the ability of some drones to attack some ground targets, they are not combat aircraft. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 26, 2012 Report Share Posted December 26, 2012 At this point, other than the ability of some drones to attack some ground targets, they are not combat aircraft. Cool story bro. Actually the MQ-9 Reaper which is already a couple of years old can carry AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-92 Stinger air to air missiles. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 26, 2012 Report Share Posted December 26, 2012 .... How do you propose we deal with the Russian airforce which periodically visits us up north and show them the way out while also providing aircraft for coverage of the rest of Canada? But this is exactly how Canada provides for its collective defense (NORAD / NATO). It's like going to a party but only having to bring a few bags of chips and maybe some dip. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 26, 2012 Report Share Posted December 26, 2012 But this is exactly how Canada provides for its collective defense (NORAD / NATO). It's like going to a party but only having to bring a few bags of chips and maybe some dip. Yes which is exactly how every other country on earth provides for its defense besides a very small handful of super powers. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 26, 2012 Report Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) Cool story bro. Actually the MQ-9 Reaper which is already a couple of years old can carry AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-92 Stinger air to air missiles. It's still a straight wing, turbo prop powered drone that can only do about 550 MPH tops. Fast for something driven by a prop but still only around the cruise speed of the average jet airliner. It is not or ever will be an air to air combat aircraft. I take that back, it can only do 260 KTS or 300 MPH. Damn Wikipedia. Edited December 26, 2012 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 26, 2012 Report Share Posted December 26, 2012 It's still a straight wing, turbo prop powered drone that can only do about 550 MPH tops. Fast for something driven by a prop but still only around the cruise speed of the average jet airliner. It is not or ever will be an air to air combat aircraft. This isnt world war 2 where snoopy and the red baron fly circles around each other trying to shoot each other down with cannons. Aircraft can see each other and launch missiles at each other from dozens of KM away. In any case patrol craft are not meant to shoot down an invasion force, they need to provide a credible threat to planes that violate our airspace. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 26, 2012 Report Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) The trouble with using TV screens to conduct air to air combat is almost total lack of situational awareness. When the operator has 360 degree all 'round/up & down visibility, then perhaps they'll come of age as air combat machines. I'm sure this is being worked on...but still a ways off, I'd imagine. that is an incredibly easy fix there are flight sims and trainers that do this, all one needs to do is input the drones video feed into the sim there are full cockpit rig ups the you put a panoramic 360 by 360 cams not a complex fix at all but humans arn't the answer for drones will be fought by artificial intelligence. data links create a compromised system Edited December 26, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 26, 2012 Report Share Posted December 26, 2012 This isnt world war 2 where snoopy and the red baron fly circles around each other trying to shoot each other down with cannons. Aircraft can see each other and launch missiles at each other from dozens of KM away. In any case patrol craft are not meant to shoot down an invasion force, they need to provide a credible threat to planes that violate our airspace. They don't even provide a credible threat to a Westjet 737 unless they can catch one taking off or landing. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 26, 2012 Report Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) We cant afford to prepare for the worst. The "worst" is an invasion by a major foreign power with thousands of planes, cruise missiles, ICBM's, or whatever. This is basic risk management. Canada cannot afford to insure itself against every possible threat, so we first need to make sure our basic needs are taken care of, then we need to insure against as many of the likely disaster scenarios as possible, then tackle a few of the unlikely scenarios if we still have money left. Well I was proposing only a partial replacement of manned aircraft with drones. We could still procure a manned aircraft in smaller numbers as well. mutually assured destruction is the best canada can aim for. they could work on a very deep hole that they could launch large nukes into that and some nasty bioagents that and canadas nuclear power plants being put into stoked meltdown nuking the tarsands and the arctic ocean any kitty picking should bring in fallout world canadian military is just for sucking us knob when america feels like attacking the second and third worlds that and keeping quebec and the disenfranchised in their place Edited December 27, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 that is an incredibly easy fix there are flight sims and trainers that do this, all one needs to do is input the drones video feed into the sim there are full cockpit rig ups the you put a panoramic 360 by 360 cams not a complex fix at all but humans arn't the answer for drones will be fought by artificial intelligence. data links create a compromised system Simulator visuals don't use cameras, they are computer generated digital images. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Those are your opinions as a supporter of this purchase. They are entirely subjective and arbitrary. No this is from a position of common sense, you stated we should buy around 20 F35s which I told you was a bad idea and I am sure Derek L can enlighten you as to why it is a bad idea more than I can. We started with 138 CF18's and we are now down to less then 80 fighters, unless you know something we don't I can foresee at some point over the next 30 years our numbers shrinking through attrition and if we buy too few aircraft we run the risk of leaving large parts of our country exposed. This is exactly why I said.... And then what? Anyone who has even the smallest glint of knowledge about this project can realize that the actual cost of the aircraft will not very greatly from aircraft to aircraft while the abilities might very greatly. Purchasing substandard aircraft(Drones) that meet only one of our needs serves no purpose at all because we will be fielding the same costs or slightly less but will have much diminished abilities. Buying more than one design of fighter aircraft will increase the cost and be overall detrimental to the abilities of the military. Like I said Drones can fly most of those patrols. I never said we would only have 20 aircraft. You stated buying 20 F35 and the rest drones, if you meant 20 F35 and then the rest another design I would support that idea if it were not for the little problem of increase cost and demand on the existing system, increase the cost and all the while decrease our cohesion as a force. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Cool story bro. Actually the MQ-9 Reaper which is already a couple of years old can carry AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-92 Stinger air to air missiles. And can it face off with a MiG 15 let alone an F35? Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 This isnt world war 2 where snoopy and the red baron fly circles around each other trying to shoot each other down with cannons. Aircraft can see each other and launch missiles at each other from dozens of KM away. In any case patrol craft are not meant to shoot down an invasion force, they need to provide a credible threat to planes that violate our airspace. Red Baron was World War One ace, and what threat does a current generation operational well armed drone present to any combat aircraft? Cutting our fighting strength in order to increase our surveillance seems kind of redundant, why should we see what is coming if we will eventually end up unable to do a damn thing about it? Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) Simulator visuals don't use cameras, they are computer generated digital images. your point is what also visuals will be computer generated in 99.99999999 percent of video applications its the concept... if you wanted to control via an em wave you could based on an analog screen. em energy travels at about the speed of light. although I really do not understand you raising the point of cpu processed data as not allowing control as if non analog data suddently mattered. it does of course to a certain extent but this could be built into the digital sensors which need not be pure digital light band but multi layered rendering. as well as intelligent recognition for sense masking techs. of course humans suffer the same problem of light band masking technologies for engagement ... its all computer sensors regardless. Edited December 27, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 The real point is that we need to buy the very best aircraft that will serve Canada for a long time to come and is affordable. The new aircraft should also be compatible with our allies planes. For things like refueling, parts etc. It doesn't need to the F35 but it should meet these needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 your point is what also visuals will be computer generated in 99.99999999 percent of video applications its the concept... if you wanted to control via an em wave you could based on an analog screen. em energy travels at about the speed of light. although I really do not understand you raising the point of cpu processed data as not allowing control as if non analog data suddently mattered. it does of course to a certain extent but this could be built into the digital sensors which need not be pure digital light band but multi layered rendering. as well as intelligent recognition for sense masking techs. of course humans suffer the same problem of light band masking technologies for engagement ... its all computer sensors regardless. Because we are not talking about a video game but seeing real objects in real time with accurate depth perception and doing it at least as fast as someone who is on site. Drone operator's eyes and brains process analog information even if they are seeing a digital presentation. I've no doubt we will be seeing more and more automated and remote systems but there is quite a way to go before unmanned air superiority aircraft are a reality. The F-35 and its peers may be the last unmanned fighters but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are not. If it is so difficult to develope a new manned fighter like the F-35, which we have nearly 100 years of experience building, what on earth makes you think the leap to unmanned fighters will be so simple? If you think there have been problems with the F-35 program, you ain't seen nothing yet. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) Because we are not talking about a video game but seeing real objects in real time with accurate depth perception and doing it at least as fast as someone who is on site. Drone operator's eyes and brains process analog information even if they are seeing a digital presentation. I've no doubt we will be seeing more and more automated and remote systems but there is quite a way to go before unmanned air superiority aircraft are a reality. The F-35 and its peers may be the last unmanned fighters but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are not. If it is so difficult to develope a new manned fighter like the F-35, which we have nearly 100 years of experience building, what on earth makes you think the leap to unmanned fighters will be so simple? If you think there have been problems with the F-35 program, you ain't seen nothing yet. its not difficult, ip is part of the problem making a jet fighter is easy. this ain't 1960 that was half a century agothat was half a century ago because it is aerospace makes more money off of superinflated jets though. there is also the trust factor Edited December 27, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 its not difficult, ip is part of the problem making a jet fighter is easy. Everyone can design and build a functioning fighter in their garage right? this ain't 1960 Yes, it is quite a deal more complicated now than it would have been in the 1960's. that was half a century agothat was half a century agobecause it is So we know you can do basic math without adding any substance to your argument... aerospace makes more money off of superinflated jets though. And that did not happen in the 1960's? there is also the trust factor And what is the trust factor? Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Everyone can design and build a functioning fighter in their garage right? thats where the arrow came from. toook some twidling but it flew. Yes, it is quite a deal more complicated now than it would have been in the 1960's. nope. there are computers that can do the whole thing And what is the trust factor? I GIVE YOU JELLO YOU DON'T MAKE ME JELLO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 that is an incredibly easy fix there are flight sims and trainers that do this, all one needs to do is input the drones video feed into the sim there are full cockpit rig ups the you put a panoramic 360 by 360 cams not a complex fix at all but humans arn't the answer for drones will be fought by artificial intelligence. data links create a compromised system I'm an avid user of such flight simulators and have tried multi-screen and even one with a flight deck on hydraulics to attempt to simulate aircraft movement. It's simply not the same as being in the cockpit of an actual aircraft. As mentioned, what is lacking is situational awareness. As for AI...I've heard the tale about the pilot becoming obsolete before...oddly enough. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Yes, it is quite a deal more complicated now than it would have been in the 1960's. Here's one from around 1960...I doubt Canada has the beans to make one let alone a fleet of them. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 I'm an avid user of such flight simulators and have tried multi-screen and even one with a flight deck on hydraulics to attempt to simulate aircraft movement. It's simply not the same as being in the cockpit of an actual aircraft. As mentioned, what is lacking is situational awareness..... Yep...one of the first things you had to pass to be a hot shot U.S. naval aviator was something called the Aviation Qualification Test (AQT) of general ability and the Flight Aptitude Rating (FAR). This test presented diagrams of different real and artificial horizons as seen from within a cockpit as well as other spatial orientation scenarios. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) Yep...one of the first things you had to pass to be a hot shot U.S. naval aviator was something called the Aviation Qualification Test (AQT) of general ability and the Flight Aptitude Rating (FAR). This test presented diagrams of different real and artificial horizons as seen from within a cockpit as well as other spatial orientation scenarios. Indeed...afaik, IFR have yet to be established for drones. Colonel: What do you see Captain? Captain: A blank screen, sir! Edited December 27, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.