bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 Russian fighters (Su-27/30, MiG 29/35) are perfectly capable of launching cruise missiles, like the Kh-31. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) Nothing catches a Kh-31. But I don't think she carries the big egg. Edited February 24, 2017 by DogOnPorch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, Peter F said: only a threat if we intend to attack Russia. Because Russia is never aggressive with their neighbours? Edited February 24, 2017 by Argus 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 21 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said: 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. 21 hours ago, 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 this during their campaign over Syria. Good timing for this piece to come out: Quote The head of U.S. Northern Command last week said the U.S. and Canada are working on upgrades to protect against cruise missile threats posed by countries such as Russia and North Korea — the first substantial buildup in more than two decades. And Quote Gen. Lori J. Robinson, also the commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command, told audiences at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute in Ottawa that the two countries have established a “binational steering group to manage the eventual replacement of the North Warning System, which is our network of surveillance radars across Alaska and northern Canada.” “For the first time ever, the United States has agreed to do a binational analysis of alternatives with Canada to explore surveillance systems for all domain situational awareness of the northern approaches to the continent,” she said Feb. 16. “Because we need to create persistent long-range surveillance to enhance our indicators and warnings against air breathing and sub-maritime threats, we also need to increase our ability to detect, track, ID and if necessary engage cruise missiles,” she said. Robinson said the defense strategy comes at a time when “Kim Jong Un is unpredictable and volatile,” and that Russia remains a “game changer” because “Russian cruise missiles can reach us from ranges we’re not used to. No longer do they have to enter or come close to North American air space and hold us at risk.” Now only if there was a fighter, buoyed by advanced technology, that could effectively intercept advanced cruise missiles....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 6 hours ago, Argus said: Because Russia is never aggressive with their neighbours? Of course they can be, depending on what they think needs aggression - sorta like every other nation in the world. But lets not assume that the only purpose of fighters based in the north of Russia is to attack us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 On 2/24/2017 at 7:49 PM, Peter F said: Of course they can be, depending on what they think needs aggression - sorta like every other nation in the world. But lets not assume that the only purpose of fighters based in the north of Russia is to attack us. I heard the weather this time of year is to die for....or was it to die in...can't remember......perhaps you can tell us why you think they are there for.? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 Letter from former Gens of the airforce, is dismissed and brushed aside.....by liberal government... http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/retired-rcaf-generals-roar-in-protest-over-the-super-hornet-and-the-liberals-yawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 17 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Letter from former Gens of the airforce, is dismissed and brushed aside.....by liberal government... What were the Generals doing during the past 6 years where there was absolutely zero progress on the replacement fighter program? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: What were the Generals doing during the past 6 years where there was absolutely zero progress on the replacement fighter program? They were employed by DND during the Cons period of governance, That being said is nobody is saying the cons are innocent in this goat fu**, but to be fair, where was the oppostion in all of this, how much needless dirt was being flung around to create discourse among Canadians who love to play arm chair warriors....creating a vacuum of support , and with that gone hard for a government to push the project through to the finish line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: Letter from former Gens of the airforce, is dismissed and brushed aside.....by liberal government... http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/retired-rcaf-generals-roar-in-protest-over-the-super-hornet-and-the-liberals-yawn I love this part of the story...make what if comparisons to "USAF commanders". That's so....Canadian. Quote In the U.S., if 13 former USAF commanders came out against a particular aircraft, there would have been lots of publicity. In Canada, not so much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 A pretty conclusive argument that Canada is wasting billions of dollars just so Trudeau won't have to launch an open competition and see the F-35 win it. Everything can be traced to the prime minister’s election campaign promise to never buy the F-35 fighter jet, allegedly because it is too expensive and doesn’t work. His conclusions are being proven wrong, but he seems determined to proceed without a timely competition, thanks to a politically created “capability gap.” That gap was based on aircraft numbers that have never been demanded simultaneously; by fudging actual CF-18 operational serviceability history; and by the false narrative that the CF-18 cannot keep operating until we start getting new aircraft. Any imagined gap, however, could be filled by 27 available Kuwaiti F-18C/D aircraft for $330 million US. Or, we could upgrade our entire fleet of 76 CF-18s to close to Super Hornet systems status for about 20 per cent of what we’ll pay for 18 Super Hornets. Neither option was explored. http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/hawn-choosing-super-hornet-over-f-35-will-just-keep-canada-grounded 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Argus said: A pretty conclusive argument that Canada is wasting billions of dollars just so Trudeau won't have to launch an open competition and see the F-35 win it. Everything can be traced to the prime minister’s election campaign promise to never buy the F-35 fighter jet, allegedly because it is too expensive and doesn’t work. His conclusions are being proven wrong, but he seems determined to proceed without a timely competition, thanks to a politically created “capability gap.” That gap was based on aircraft numbers that have never been demanded simultaneously; by fudging actual CF-18 operational serviceability history; and by the false narrative that the CF-18 cannot keep operating until we start getting new aircraft. Any imagined gap, however, could be filled by 27 available Kuwaiti F-18C/D aircraft for $330 million US. Or, we could upgrade our entire fleet of 76 CF-18s to close to Super Hornet systems status for about 20 per cent of what we’ll pay for 18 Super Hornets. Neither option was explored. http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/hawn-choosing-super-hornet-over-f-35-will-just-keep-canada-grounded Yes , but the author is a retired Sqn commander, and we don't listen to anyone that may know something about this topic....bring in the liberal experts....anyone see that guy, some are now saying it is the night janitor.....some also say the CDS is on board....it's time to put him to pasture as well. One can not be a soldier and a politician at the same time...Pick a job , get off your knees and start leading our troops and what is best for them or step down, make room for real soldiers.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 Looks like Team Trudeau will now officially beg for U.S. F-18 Super Hornets in writing after a long negotiation. Instead of a commercial deal, Canada will have to hope that the U.S. Government / Pentagon is in a cooperative mood for FMS (Foreign Military Sales). http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jet-fighter-deal-1.4025309 I think Canada should have to pay a large premium for these aircraft compared to the U.S. Navy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Looks like Team Trudeau will now officially beg for U.S. F-18 Super Hornets in writing after a long negotiation. Instead of a commercial deal, Canada will have to hope that the U.S. Government / Pentagon is in a cooperative mood for FMS (Foreign Military Sales). No problem, lots of other fish in the ocean. If Donald doesn't want to sell, then he can cozy up to them all by himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 2 minutes ago, ?Impact said: No problem, lots of other fish in the ocean. If Donald doesn't want to sell, then he can cozy up to them all by himself. President Trump will sell alright, but Canada may not like the price. It never does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: President Trump will sell alright, but Canada may not like the price. It never does. No problem, we can walk away from a Trump deal very easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 Just now, ?Impact said: No problem, we can walk away from a Trump deal very easily. No....the opposite is true. Canada wants it both ways on F-35 contracts and competing options. Canada will never totally walk away from its American arms benefactor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Canada wants it both ways on F-35 contracts and competing options. China makes a comparable aircraft, and they have far better air-air missiles. Russia makes a far better fighter if that is what you want. That combined with unmanned vehicles and Trump can go broke building F-35s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 Just now, ?Impact said: China makes a comparable aircraft, and they have far better air-air missiles. Russia makes a far better fighter if that is what you want. That combined with unmanned vehicles and Trump can go broke building F-35s. Sure they do....the old China/Russia is better than the USA tease is very, very Canadian....going back decades to even before moon landings. That's why Canada fields so much Chinese and Russian kit, right ? Plus their stuff is far more affordable...Canada likes that ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 (edited) More Canadian Generals add their names to the original 13 ,including EX CDS, who say the Super hornet interim buy is not good for Canada, cites performance, and pilot safety .....The question remains How many Military generals does it take to give a second pause , and investigate their claims.....And the media has made the claim that current CDS is onboard and supporting the super hornet has to be questioned....WTF nor have we heard from current Airforce Commander....also WTF.....estimated cost of 18 planes is now at 5 to 7 bil.....Does that not perk up any liberal....that was almost the entire budget of the F-35 purchase project......for 18 planes......come on i can hardly wait until that is costed out to the 42 year mark..... http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/matthew-fisher-super-hornets-would-make-canada-reliant-on-u-s-jets-to-defend-arctic-ex-fighter-pilots-say Edited March 15, 2017 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 If we do not buy the F-35 we lose control/ sovereignty over the arctic and this government does not seem to care at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 27 minutes ago, PIK said: If we do not buy the F-35 we lose control/ sovereignty over the arctic and this government does not seem to care at all. The F-35 is not appropriate for the arctic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, ?Impact said: The F-35 is not appropriate for the arctic Lemme guess...because it has one engine...and you think that a twin engine jet uses the second engine as a backup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 15 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Lemme guess...because it has one engine...and you think that a twin engine jet uses the second engine as a backup? Yes, that is just one of many reasons. Range is a particularly important difference as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 LOL...so the F-16 is crippled in the Arctic by range and its single engine? Watch this video... Gee...what is that jet doing to that other jet?? 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.