DogOnPorch Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 With both the MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27 (Su-30 also, but it is essentially a derivative of the Su-27). The American F-22 is superior to them in air-air combat, but the F-35 is not. The AIM-120 has a really good range. I doubt the Russkies have anything quite that good. Their R-77 comes close...but, it's pretty old tech-wise. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Argus Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 The Navy fleet will be made up mostly of hornets and super hornets until 2030, and super hornets until 2035. Then they will be dead meat for stealthed Russian fighters. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
DogOnPorch Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Then they will be dead meat for stealthed Russian fighters. The Allies sent hundreds...thousands...of men to their deaths in the Great War in sub-standard aircraft...who would have thought the DH-2 was a piece of crap next to the Albatros D3 Edited June 13, 2016 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
?Impact Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 The AIM-120 has a really good range. At $2 million a pop it should have. Point taken however, it is the entire package and not just the plane itself that will determine outcome. Armament, intelligence, pilot, etc. all play a significant factor in a battle. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 At $2 million a pop it should have. Point taken however, it is the entire package and not just the plane itself that will determine outcome. Armament, intelligence, pilot, etc. all play a significant factor in a battle. Russians talk a big game...but their tech always remains just that bit behind...the important bit. I suppose that's why their method was usually quantity over quality...but that's pretty bad for pilot morale. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
overthere Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 Then they will be dead meat for stealthed Russian fighters. Yep. Matthew Fisher has an interesting take on how Canada, or more accurately Trudeau, will sell our sovereignty by this bizarre investment in Super Hornets- short or long term. Actually, it has to be long term as Canada simply cannot support two fighter platforms. The choices are all-in for Super Hornets, or keep the F18s until we buy F-35. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/matthew-fisher-why-the-super-hornets-will-force-canada-out-of-its-own-north The most questionable aspect of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s quixotic decision to renege on the promise of an open competition for Canada’s next fighter jet and suddenly ram through the sole-source purchase of Super Hornets — a decision Postmedia News has revealed it is close to making — is that, by doing so, Canada will end up surrendering sovereignty of its Arctic air space to the United States Air Force in about 10 years. Matthew Fisher: Buying Super Hornets, not F-35s, will saddle air force with ‘the wrong aircraft forever’ Critics of the F-35 will laugh and say this is hyperbole and melodrama. It is not. Keeping the U.S. safe is the top priority of every U.S. president. If Canada cannot or will not protect its Atlantic, Pacific and northern approaches, its Norad treaty with the U.S. permits Washington to do so............ ....the reality is that the U.S. will do whatever it has to to defend itself............ ......Worse than that, Washington will insist that Canada’s Super Hornets stay in the rear. The reason is clear. Four allied air forces operate in the Arctic. The U.S., Norway and Denmark, which defends Greenland and sometimes deploys fighter jets to a base they jointly operate with the USAF at Thule, will soon only be flying state-of-the art F-35s in the Far North. The other country, Canada, will not. The F-35 is revolutionary in that it will basically be a flying computer with sensor fusion. F-35s flying hundreds of kilometres apart will be able to create a common battle picture. Being stealthy, they will secretly patrol far more safely while collectively surveying vast amounts of territory for information that they can instantly share with each other, spy and command aircraft and ground stations. Once the Super Hornet is found, as it will be by a stealthy enemy, F-35s in the vicinity will become targets, too. That is why the U.S. will not want Canadian fighters operating anywhere near its warplanes in the north......... ..........The Super Hornets’ advantages in range, payload and an extra engine are irrelevant if the aircraft is not survivable. The Super Hornet will not be invisible to radar so, at a certain point in the not too distant future, it will be shot down long before it can engage the enemy.......... .........Finland has looked at the numbers that Denmark came up with after a competition in which it chose the F-35 over the Super Hornet. As a result, the Finns are believed to be close to deciding that they, too, will reject the Super Hornet in favour of the F-35. If Finland follows Denmark’s lead, it will become the 12th western-oriented air force in a row to choose the F-35 over the Super Hornet, with Canada the only exception. Canadians should ask themselves: Is everyone who made those decisions — including those confronting similar security challenges in the Arctic — stupid? What is it that makes Canada so unique that it feels it can ignore the collective wisdom of all its allies and friends?......... We have elected a dangerous fool. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
PIK Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Just have to listen to dion to know they are selling us out. Soft power baby!! Edited June 13, 2016 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
?Impact Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) We have elected a dangerous fool. Nobody elected Matthew Fisher, his article is full of complete falsehoods. 1. The only sole source was the announcement by Harper in 2010 (following on to his other sole source C-17 and C-103J contracts). All we have now is some rumours spread by Fisher and the National Post. 2. The F-35 is not stealthy, he doesn't have a clue. It can be seen on radar, and once you put more than a couple of bombs on it or a fuel tank to take it more than a few miles, it will light up on all displays. The SuperHornet can operate in the same parameters as the F-35 when you put the weapons in an undercarriage pod. 3. The F-35 is not a first strike aircraft, the F-22 is. There is a world of difference between these two aircrafts. The F-35 goes in after, to strike land targets. Edited June 13, 2016 by ?Impact Quote
waldo Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 We have elected a dangerous fool. Postmedia's Matthew Fisher? Apparently... that's one of the generals that another MLW relies upon here! Without speaking to the particulars of that article, just reading the linked title gives me pause... begs the question to you as to just what Harper Conservatives did in regards their much hyped emphasis on Arctic sovereignty? Remember, Harper's yearly photo-shoot doesn't count! . Quote
?Impact Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 just what Harper Conservatives did in regards their much hyped emphasis on Arctic sovereignty? He did command the tarmac at Tuktoyaktuk airport with his ATV, dem Ruskies certainly weren't going to mess with him. Quote
overthere Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 Ahh, the defnce of the witless: BUTTTTTTTT HARRRPPPPPERRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! The Waldo OCD is now officially contagious. All we have now is some rumours spread by Fisher and the National Post. So you are absolutely certain that Trudeau is not planning to sole source Super Hornets? And the 12 NATO allies so far who have decided to purchase f35, including all three of the other NATO Arctic border countries...., are all stupid and uninformed too. Gotcha. The prime responsibilities of any Prime Minister at any time are to ensure sovereignty and defence of this country. Describing the current PM as a dangerous fool is perhaps overly kind. If so, I apologize. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
?Impact Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 So you are absolutely certain that Trudeau is not planning to sole source Super Hornets? Exactly my point, all we have is rumours. It is you that seems to think that a rumour is fact when it fits your narrative. I am simply pointing out that it is a rumour - period! Quote
Argus Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 Exactly my point, all we have is rumours. It is you that seems to think that a rumour is fact when it fits your narrative. I am simply pointing out that it is a rumour - period! All the meetings with Boeing and Trudeau stating openly that we wouldn't buy the F-35 has nothing to do with the discussion, huh? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 Postmedia's Matthew Fisher? Apparently... that's one of the generals that another MLW relies upon here! Without speaking to the particulars of that article, just reading the linked title gives me pause... begs the question to you as to just what Harper Conservatives did in regards their much hyped emphasis on Arctic sovereignty? Remember, Harper's yearly photo-shoot doesn't count! Unlike yourself, I'm not a partisan hack, so I criticized the Conservatives a number of times on that score. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 Unlike yourself, I'm not a partisan hack, so I criticized the Conservatives a number of times on that score. you did? Then I'm shocked you let the statement from MLW member 'overthere' concerning Arctic sovereignty stand without offering your like perspective on Harper Conservatives doing diddly squat on the file! Shocked. Am I rubbin' ya the wrong way... is that why you're lashing out with the insults? . Quote
waldo Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 All the meetings with Boeing and Trudeau stating openly that we wouldn't buy the F-35 has nothing to do with the discussion, huh? I'd like to be privy to those meetings/discussion... stating that openly. Do you have transcripts? . Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 And folks thought me posting the Camel as a proven weapon of war was being silly....hey let's buy an aircraft designed before the pilots were born. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 Exactly my point, all we have is rumours. It is you that seems to think that a rumour is fact when it fits your narrative. I am simply pointing out that it is a rumour - period! and... the extension on that rumour is that it's intended as a "gap-filling interim" measure... one that I interpret as a means to allow the F-35 to properly settle in and prove itself. As you point out, it seems there's a want to accept and push the rumour... but only to fit the narrative of "sole-source, long-term". Go figure! . Quote
Smallc Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) With what, exactly? Ask Bush Cheney - he's the one that told me they could. I took it as the truth. There are several platforms, including the R-77M that seem to have better range than the AIM 120. Edited June 13, 2016 by Smallc Quote
waldo Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 Ahh, the defnce of the witless: BUTTTTTTTT HARRRPPPPPERRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! The Waldo OCD is now officially contagious. no - I'm not defending you; not at all! However, when you make such an outlandishly targeted comment based on 'General Matthew Fisher from Postmedia', I will certainly provide the appropriate reference/perspective on Arctic sovereignty. You can choose to interpret a related factual critique of Harper Conservatives in the manner you've chosen... your prerogative! So you are absolutely certain that Trudeau is not planning to sole source Super Hornets? And the 12 NATO allies so far who have decided to purchase f35, including all three of the other NATO Arctic border countries...., are all stupid and uninformed too. Gotcha. The prime responsibilities of any Prime Minister at any time are to ensure sovereignty and defence of this country. Describing the current PM as a dangerous fool is perhaps overly kind. If so, I apologize. if the F-35 proves to match it's propaganda/hype, we should getSum... presumably at a reasonable cost. In regards your claim towards 12 NATO allies, "deciding to purchase", notwithstanding "deciding" doesn't buy nuthin, can you put some definition around that "deciding": how many F-35s have actually been purchased... not original commitments... not even rolled back commitments from the originals - how many have been purchased with contracts signed and money exchanged, by which countries and over what time frames? . Quote
Smallc Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 With both the MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27 (Su-30 also, but it is essentially a derivative of the Su-27). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 Ask Bush Cheney - he's the one that told me they could. I took it as the truth. There are several platforms, including the R-77M that seem to have better range than the AIM 120. The AIM-120 has verified combat kills....how many for the R-77M ? Canadians arguing the merits of Russian vs. American kit while wishing to spend little on either is always amusing....and so predictable. Go Navy ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 Russian missiles were always crude and dubious...their first was a straight-up copy of the Sidewinder...but it sucked. The Foxbat required that you alternate RH and IR missiles due to crude electronics...annoying. It has only improved somewhat...always a bridesmaid...never a bride. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 The AIM-120 has verified combat kills....how many for the R-77M ? I love how you have no problem arguing the exact opposite point that you did last time we had this same conversation. Quote
Smallc Posted June 13, 2016 Report Posted June 13, 2016 Russian missiles were always crude and dubious For sure - but the Russians could absolutely trounce us today. The same will be true no matter which platform we choose to buy. 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.