Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Integrated air defense grid...lol This isn't against the Red Chinese.

 

And your Tucano force would be properly vaporized by a force armed with Cold War era Soviet and Chinese SAMs and triple A.

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada is losing the ability to independently support expeditionary forces/missions of any kind.....land, sea, and air.

This is what will bring things to a standstill faster than anything else....logistics.

Missions will stall in planning before they ever start, regardless of new strike fighters.

 

There were two nice Frenchie LHAs jus' sitting there...now Egypt of all places has them. I'm embarrassed as a Canucklehead.

[Peter F]

2 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

2 hours ago, Peter F said:

so neither us nor the USofA use inflight refuelling for fighters?

 

Of course they do, why?

 

So when the Ruski's decide to strategically bomb North America (Who knew that the Nuc Umbrella has been rendered obsolete by Ruski's having bombers?) escorted by in-flight refuelled fighters, The USAF will intercept them with in-flight refuelled fighters.  The fact that the russians base aircraft in the Russian north does not constitute a threat.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Derek 2.0 said:

 

And your Tucano force would be properly vaporized by a force armed with Cold War era Soviet and Chinese SAMs and triple A.

 

 

 

Your opinion, apparently as the Tucano already operates in these dangerous theaters against folks with real live AAA.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Peter F said:

.... The fact that the russians base aircraft in the Russian north does not constitute a threat.

 

They are a "threat" by definition, even if deployed defensively.   Assets have to be allocated to counter them if/when required.

And we all know what happened to KAL 007.

 

[Peter F]

2 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

2 hours ago, Peter F said:

The point  of Russian fighters being based in the russian north is not to attack us but to defend against roving USN fleets interfering with their up and coming alternative to the Panama canal: the North East Passage.  

 

Defend against "roving USN fleets"........in the Arctic.....

You have heard of global warming and the disappearing Arctic ice sheet? Isn't that the whole point of this need for Canadian naval and air presence in the Arctic to stop the Russian and Danes from seizing our arctic sovereignty ? If the russians are capable of sending naval and air units to seize Canadian arctic oil fields, is not the USN capable of carrier operations in Northern waters?

[Derek 2.0]

Just now, Peter F said:

So when the Ruski's decide to strategically bomb North America (Who knew that the Nuc Umbrella has been rendered obsolete by Ruski's having bombers?) escorted by in-flight refuelled fighters, The USAF will intercept them with in-flight refuelled fighters.  The fact that the russians base aircraft in the Russian north does not constitute a threat.

 

The Russians, afforded the benefit offered by long range, air launched, supersonic cruise missiles can "bomb" North America from the periphery........The fact that the Russians can attack North America with nuclear armed supersonic cruise missiles does constitute a threat, is the basis of NORAD, and is why NORAD has returned to Cheyenne mountain recently.  

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, Peter F said:

So when the Ruski's decide to strategically bomb North America (Who knew that the Nuc Umbrella has been rendered obsolete by Ruski's having bombers?) escorted by in-flight refuelled fighters, The USAF will intercept them with in-flight refuelled fighters.  The fact that the russians base aircraft in the Russian north does not constitute a threat.

There's a base in Eastern Siberia called Ukrainka (one of many but with better resolution than most) that if you Google Earth it, you can see how seriously the Russians still take strategic bombers.

[Derek 2.0]

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Your opinion, apparently as the Tucano already operates in these dangerous theaters against folks with real live AAA.

 

By a first world force, against a force with a integrated air defense network? 

 

My opinion is supported by fact........

[Peter F]

9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

They are a "threat" by definition, even if deployed defensively.   Assets have to be allocated to counter them if/when required.

And we all know what happened to KAL 007.

 

not really. Oft times assets are not deployed because the threat is vanishingly small.   The cold war lasted many years and russian bomber fleets existed all that time yet interception from southern North American airbases (including in flight refuelling of course) was a perfectly rational and sensible defensive scheme. Has NORAD disappeared?

Edited February 24, 2017 by Peter F

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Derek 2.0 said:

 

By a first world force, against a force with a integrated air defense network? 

 

My opinion is supported by fact........

 

OK...but Canada cannot presently mount a strike mission independently without defense suppression and support from other allied actors.

Agree or disagree ?

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

By a first world force, against a force with a integrated air defense network? 

 

My opinion is supported by fact........

 

Already deployed in these treacherous areas.

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, Peter F said:

Has NORAD disappeared?

Not at all, and its been expanded in size and scope contrasted with its decline after the wall came down.........and not because there isn't a "threat".

[Derek 2.0]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK...but Canada cannot presently mount a strike mission independently without defense suppression and support from other allied actors.

Agree or disagree ?

That's subjective........we could mount a strike independently at least once.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Already deployed in these treacherous areas.

 

I'm sorry, by who and against who? 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Peter F said:

not really.

 

Yes really....operations planners get paid to scope out and design resource allocations that address current and potential threats.  

It would be incompetent to not do so.   Russian aircraft with tactical and strategic range capabilities have to be addressed, especially now that weapons payloads include long range cruise missiles.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

That's subjective........we could mount a strike independently at least once.

 

I'll take that as a wry "agree".    Facing current and future threat environments, Canada cannot effectively act alone.  And that's OK, most other nations can't either.

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes really....operations planners get paid to scope out and design resource allocations that address current and potential threats.  

It would be incompetent to not do so.   Russian aircraft with tactical and strategic range capabilities have to be addressed, especially now that weapons payloads include long range cruise missiles.

Extremely long range supersonic cruise missile, launched from a bomber able to sprint faster then any fighter in NATO.....a threat the Soviets didn't even pose.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

I'm sorry, by who and against who? 

 

I understand that you personally don't like this aircraft. But, it is proven in action and has many of the same features of the F-35 in terms of survivability and effectiveness. Satellite integration, etc.

Think Skyraider or Trojan...not F-4 Phantom.

[Peter F]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Not at all, and its been expanded in size and scope contrasted with its decline after the wall came down.........and not because there isn't a "threat".

So the threat isn't Russian fighters based in northern Russia. But bombers with VLR cruise missiles apparently.  For strategic bombing purposes. .. of what? When? Has the USofA given up the whole nuclear deterrence thing? 

[Derek 2.0]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

But, it is proven in action and has many of the same features of the F-35 in terms of survivability and effectiveness. Satellite integration, etc.

 

 

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

Think Skyraider or Trojan...not F-4 Phantom.

 

A Phantom would come closer then a Tucano to being able to meet our NATO and NORAD requirements.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Peter F said:

So the threat isn't Russian fighters based in northern Russia. But bombers with VLR cruise missiles apparently.  For strategic bombing purposes. .. of what? When? Has the USofA given up the whole nuclear deterrence thing? 

 

Nuclear deterrence is not intended to stop tactical weapons attacks.  Canada shouldn't think the USofA would blow its nuclear wad to protect the Edmonton Mall.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Peter F said:

So the threat isn't Russian fighters based in northern Russia. But bombers with VLR cruise missiles apparently.  For strategic bombing purposes. .. of what? When? Has the USofA given up the whole nuclear deterrence thing? 

 

Good gravy yes re: bombers. As of late, the Russians have even been giving them a workout.

Just now, Derek 2.0 said:

 

A Phantom would come closer then a Tucano to being able to meet our NATO and NORAD requirements.

I'm talking about the needs of our troops...not NATO.

[Derek 2.0]

5 minutes ago, Peter F said:

So the threat isn't Russian fighters based in northern Russia. But bombers with VLR cruise missiles apparently.  For strategic bombing purposes. .. of what? When? Has the USofA given up the whole nuclear deterrence thing? 

 

No, as I already told you, the threat is bombers armed with cruise missiles, escorted by modern Russian fighters.......this isn't theoretical, they were actually doing this during their campaign over Syria.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Derek 2.0

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Derek 2.0 said:

 

No, as I already told you, the threat is bombers armed with cruise missiles, escorted by modern Russian fighters.......this isn't theoretical, they were actually doing during their campaign over Syria.

Arc Light style, too....bomb where yea may.

Some really impressive thermobaric stuff that breaks open and rains fire.