Army Guy Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 It's not a civil organization. Police train for riots and are legally able to carry out law enforcement/ Your right it is not a civilian organization, it is a Military organization controlled by our government. The same way the RCMP are controlled by our government. Both are trained in riot control. The only difference is the military does not have powers of arrest...They do however have powers to detain, Until RCMP members arrive to make an arrest.... The military has handled many civilian unrest problems within our nation, including Prison riots, OKA riots, FLQ crisis...It has also been the lead organization in providing security for things like the games in BC, G-4 summits etc..... It has even taken control of the Kingston max security pen while it rioted and the guards went on strike....It has done many things that it does not specialize in but has always been there when they are called upon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I'm not saying that the army doesn't have uses domestically in extreme circumstances. I'm simply arguing that better funded dedicated civilian organizations are better for many of the tasks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I'm not saying that the army doesn't have uses domestically in extreme circumstances. I'm simply arguing that better funded dedicated civilian organizations are better for many of the tasks. Yes and you mentioned different SAR agencies.....and yet when something difficult comes around how many of those agancies get called out....Say like the rescue in the artic, where Sar techs jumped into the frozen water to rescue someone on a piece of floating ice.....Or the weather is so bad that only military aircraft fly....Don't get me wrong I have repect for anyone that puts their lives on the line to save others....But we could hardly say that DND's SAR techs can be out done by other organizations in regards to training, equipment, resources available.....I mean how many could pull off a rescue attempt some 50 kms from alert, at the fringes of our northern borders... If your looking for excuses to down size the Military, or to underfund it then fine, stand up and just do it.....Instead governments have been stabbing our military in the backs for generations, with small cuts here and there, to where we are today, on life support....Politicians are afraid to look its military members in the eyes and tell them what they are really thinking....and shut down our military.....because they don't want to fund it properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I'm not looking to defund the military. I was in the past a proponent of the 2% target, but an extra $20B per year seems excessive. I think the military should be funded for what we want and need it to do. At the same time, I recognize that there are things that it probably shouldn't and can't do. I would actually argue that SAR should be a separate function, but that the fighter fleet should be larger. I'd also argue that the army should be smaller, and the navy, about the same size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Yes you are, your current statement says as much, and your justification is what exactly ? You state an extra 20 bil seems excessive to bring us in line with 2 % of GDP.....and yet we spend over 27 bil on immigration every year and nobody blinks an eye at that amount.... Nobody in Canada wants a large military, what they want is one that could do all of it's tasks with ease, one that is equipped properly, one that looks after it's vets and members who have sacrificed so much for this nation..... Currently our ARMY is the largest element in the forces, it is made up of 3 very under manned Brigades....;lacking in so much equipment it is a joke....recent history has clearly spelled this out for all Canadians to see.... DND has said in the media on many occasions that the maximum rotation it could field long term was just over 3500 people....WOW....3500 men and women.... ICE storm, not a huge event , but when DND responded it took all 3 under manned brigades to bring all the resources to bear and solve the crises and it was not enough, that numbers also includes a large contribution from the reserve world... Winnipeg floods, also took all 3 army brigades, reserve units, many airforce and NAVY pers....and it was not enough....the fact was more than 75 % of the forces was in one city at one time..... Anything bigger than these two events will quickly over whelm our forces capabilities to respond and make a difference....What does that mean...it means Canadians will not get the help they need when they need it, it means there could be loss of life.... The Army is the rich cousin compared to all the other elements....and it's in poor shape....12 ships is not enough to patrol one of the largest coastlines in the world, plus maintain all it's NATO and US defense agreements.... SO history has shown us we can not preform light combat duties for any length of time, nor can we effectively respond to anything larger than the ICE storm or Winnipeg floods.....That has got to ring some bells with some one.... Not to mention all the leasons we have forgotten from the rest of the Combat operations or wars we have fought...How many lives were lost because we were not ready, how many times have we said never again....and yet here we are, in a world that is not any safer than it was in 1937.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I assure you that I have more emergency services experience than you do. The military is not a legitimate tool to quell non existent civil unrest in Canada. The RCMP is now well equipped for that task, as are most city police departments. I guess that explains why things >went so well in Caledonia<.(sarcasm font) Would you describe the police actions there as competent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I guess that explains why things >went so well in Caledonia<.(sarcasm font) Would you describe the police actions there as competent? Does that mean you think the military should have been called in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 in regards your statement: "The really scary thing about this plane IMO is what happens if/when the Russians/Chinese are capable of defeating the F-35's stealth systems?" Notwithstanding the cascade of critical thought/review concerning stealth and defeating it today... today...what gives you any sense that F-35 stealth will be effective? . The fact that its radar signature is significantly smaller than its peers and that radar is still the primary means of detecting aircraft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Smallc , you know it bad when that question comes up, that maybe the military should have taken over when the police would not do their jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Smallc , you know it bad when that question comes up, that maybe the military should have taken over when the police would not do their jobs. I see no evidence that the military would have (or could have) settled it any differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 The fact that its radar signature is significantly smaller than its peers and that radar is still the primary means of detecting aircraft? notwithstanding the absence of any formal statement on the state of F-35 stealth, vis-a-vis real-world testing (isn't "classified" just a handy ready go-to), the F-35 signature you speak to is, per specification/as reported, keyed to 'X' band with a stated good stealth capability on a "narrow frontal aspect" (supposedly not F-22 good, but still...); less so from the sides/bottom/top/rear. However, see tech advances in 'X' band radars on board fighters making them more capable of stealth target detection; e.g. Russian Su-35 fighter & IRBIS-E X-band radar. Notwithstanding, of course, advances in lower-band radars (VHF, UHF) allowing mobile ground-based radar systems to, reportedly, detect "low-observable aircraft" and more accurately direct missiles toward those targets. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Canada's fighter "jets" radar signature will soon be the smallest of all, 'cause there will so few of them deemed airworthy. Very inexpensive stealth,,,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Canada's fighter "jets" radar signature will soon be the smallest of all, 'cause there will so few of them deemed airworthy. Very inexpensive stealth,,,, hey, no worries - see interim 'gap-filling' purchase, uhhh... suggestion; ya, suggestion! Try to keep up, hey! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 (edited) notwithstanding the absence of any formal statement on the state of F-35 stealth, vis-a-vis real-world testing (isn't "classified" just a handy ready go-to), the F-35 signature you speak to is, per specification/as reported, keyed to 'X' band with a stated good stealth capability on a "narrow frontal aspect" (supposedly not F-22 good, but still...); less so from the sides/bottom/top/rear. However, see tech advances in 'X' band radars on board fighters making them more capable of stealth target detection; e.g. Russian Su-35 fighter & IRBIS-E X-band radar. Notwithstanding, of course, advances in lower-band radars (VHF, UHF) allowing mobile ground-based radar systems to, reportedly, detect "low-observable aircraft" and more accurately direct missiles toward those targets. . SO much notwithstanding. Regardless, I don't think we're arguing about anything here. I brought up the concerns with the F-35's stealth tech years ago. The F-22 has been in service since ~2005 and the Reds have no doubt been working on improving their detection capabilities since then. The F-35 isn't as stealthy as the F-22, however, so what we're really banking on is that the Russians will not have been able to solve either the F-22's stealth abilities nor the inferior F-35's either with 20+ years of research. Edited June 22, 2016 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 SO much notwithstanding. Regardless, I don't think we're arguing about anything here. I brought up the concerns with the F-35's stealth tech years ago. The F-22 has been in service since ~2005 and the Reds have no doubt been working on improving their detection capabilities since then. The F-35 isn't as stealthy as the F-22, however, so what we're really banking on is that the Russians will not have been able to solve either the F-22's stealth abilities nor the inferior F-35's either with 20+ years of research. notwithstanding your unnecessary smarmy references to... notwithstanding, those notwithstandings... stand! They're significant above and beyond the principal focus of claimed inherent F-35 'stealthiness'. Notwithstanding advances in infrared 'search & track' - notwithstanding that! If you claim to have years ago expressed concerns over the F-35 stealth tech, your comment I replied to is... odd; where you said, "The really scary thing about this plane IMO is what happens if/when the Russians/Chinese are capable of defeating the F-35's stealth systems?" Which, of course, presumes they (I presume your described "Reds"... really, "Reds"?) don't have that capability now. Wasn't it the Russians who actually pioneered IRST? In any case, the point is most MLW neophytes here speak of the F-35 stealth as some form of invincibility... that it's not. A top US Navy officer (Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert) thinks that one of the F-35's most hyped capabilities is 'overrated' "What does that next strike fighter look like?" Greenert said during the speech in Washington. "I'm not sure it's manned, don't know that it is. You can only go so fast, and you know that stealth may be overrated ... Let's face it, if something moves fast through the air, disrupts molecules and puts out heat — I don't care how cool the engine can be, it's going to be detectable. You get my point." Greenert's has a long-standing skepticism of stealth, which he believes will not be able to keep up with advances in radar technology. In 2012, Greenert wrote that "t is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems — or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them." Greenert's position on the questionable utility of stealth meshes with what certain figures in the US defense industry are saying, with Boeing taking the view that electro-magnetic warfare and the use of jamming technology is fundamentally more important than stealth. ... as in the Boeing Super Hornet F/A-18F variant, the EA-18G Growler . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 however, so what we're really banking on is that the Russians will not have been able to solve either the F-22's stealth abilities nor the inferior F-35's either with 20+ years of research. The F-117A Stealth Fighter was shot down 18 years ago by a Russian S-125 Neva/Pechora. The F-117A has a similar radar profile as F-35, the F-22 radar profile is smaller. The SR-71 managed to never be shot down, but it was engaged during combat over 800 times. It was not its stealth characteristics that help it, but speed and altitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 .... It was not its stealth characteristics that help it, but speed and altitude. Canada tried "speed and altitude" over 50 years ago in the CF-105, but nobody would buy it, not even Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Canada tried "speed and altitude" over 50 years ago in the CF-105, but nobody would buy it, not even Canada. CF-105 might have been faster than an F-35, but it was nowhere near the SR-71. The CF-105 was close to Mach 2, but the SR-71 was able to do Mach 3.2 (unconfirmed report was at least one sustained flight at Mach 3.5). The CF-105 operated around 50,000 feet, and the SR-71 exceeded 80,000 (6 miles higher). The CF-105 was a good interceptor, but outracing missiles was not in its bag of tricks. The SR-71 was a bomber that operated at high altitude, and when missiles were fired at it they lost most of their fuel just getting to the altitude and couldn't chase it when it accelerated. The CF-105 was fairly agile, the SR-71 was not but what it lacked there it made up for in running away quickly. Very different aircraft for very different purposes. One big issue with the SR-71 was at those speeds it would heat up dramatically and cause significant damage to the aircraft the took a lot of time/money to repair. The big problems would be popped rivets, and delaminated skin plates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 ....One big issue with the SR-71 was at those speeds it would heat up dramatically and cause significant damage to the aircraft the took a lot of time/money to repair. The big problems would be popped rivets, and delaminated skin plates. Yes...it is fun to discuss yet another American (or Soviet era) aircraft as a diversion from the pesky task at hand. Like these now long retired aircraft, Canada's CF-188's should have been in museums years ago. Even if Canada had an A-12 or SR-71 super plane, it would be afraid to use it for its intended purpose. Back to reality.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 If you claim to have years ago expressed concerns over the F-35 stealth tech, your comment I replied to is... odd; where you said, "The really scary thing about this plane IMO is what happens if/when the Russians/Chinese are capable of defeating the F-35's stealth systems?" What about it is odd? The F-35's stealth characteristics are a downgrade from the F-22's. If one of the main touted advantages is a stealth profile inferior to one that its most likely opponents have already had 10+ years to prepare countermeasures for, that's concerning, isn't it? It was concerning 4-5 years ago and it's still concerning now. Which, of course, presumes they (I presume your described "Reds"... really, "Reds"?) don't have that capability now. Wasn't it the Russians who actually pioneered IRST? In any case, the point is most MLW neophytes here speak of the F-35 stealth as some form of invincibility... that it's not. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. It seems like we mostly agree. The only thing I'll counter with is that where people seem to mistake "Stealth" as invincible, you seem to consider it "useless". It's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 The F-117A Stealth Fighter was shot down 18 years ago by a Russian S-125 Neva/Pechora. The F-117A has a similar radar profile as F-35, the F-22 radar profile is smaller. The SR-71 managed to never be shot down, but it was engaged during combat over 800 times. It was not its stealth characteristics that help it, but speed and altitude. Maybe you can explain why F-117 were so successful in initial raids over Bagdad, the worlds most heavily defended airspace at the time, without a single loss...ask the pilots if stealth did not help....And If speed and alt was all that mattered why not send in F-15 at 2.5 mach and 60,000 alt ....Shit even a 22 cal rifle can take down a fighter, or a 10 dollar lazer....Stealth gives you another tool for pilots to defeat the enemy....it's not the end all to be all, just another tool....but you can't use it if you don't have it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 SO much notwithstanding. Regardless, I don't think we're arguing about anything here. I brought up the concerns with the F-35's stealth tech years ago. The F-22 has been in service since ~2005 and the Reds have no doubt been working on improving their detection capabilities since then. The F-35 isn't as stealthy as the F-22, however, so what we're really banking on is that the Russians will not have been able to solve either the F-22's stealth abilities nor the inferior F-35's either with 20+ years of research. Uh.....no, per the head of Air Combat Command: “The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets,” says Hostage, leaning forward. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.” But stealth — the ability to elude or greatly complicate an enemy’s ability to find and destroy an aircraft using a combination of design, tactics and technology — is not a magic pill, Hostage reminds us. And your source that the Russians have or are even near "solving stealth"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) notwithstanding the absence of any formal statement on the state of F-35 stealth, vis-a-vis real-world testing (isn't "classified" just a handy ready go-to), the F-35 signature you speak to is, per specification/as reported, keyed to 'X' band with a stated good stealth capability on a "narrow frontal aspect" (supposedly not F-22 good, but still...); less so from the sides/bottom/top/rear. However, see tech advances in 'X' band radars on board fighters making them more capable of stealth target detection; e.g. Russian Su-35 fighter & IRBIS-E X-band radar. Notwithstanding, of course, advances in lower-band radars (VHF, UHF) allowing mobile ground-based radar systems to, reportedly, detect "low-observable aircraft" and more accurately direct missiles toward those targets. . No, per the head of the USAF's fighter force, the F-35's all aspect "stealth" is better than the F-22........the aircraft rumored to best all others is the B-2......which being apart of the nuclear triad, they won't publicly confirm. Low frequency band radars (VHF/UHF) can't direct (guide) missiles, anymore than 1950s rabbit ears on a tv can, due to the fact that they are low frequency and are subject to "ghosting"......as accurate as playing darts blindfolded..........in addition, unlike high frequency radars (fire control/search radars), low frequency bands can't be strobed (turned on and off rapidly), making them more susceptible to anti-radiation attacks........any emitting (active) radar can be "seen" long before by attackers then the inverse. As to Russian radar "advancements" I'd look no further then the German Luftwaffe: When the the West and East reunited their air force operated the third generation American F-4 Phantom and the 4th generation Russian Mig-29 well the Eurofighter was in development. The Germans "retired" the Migs obtained in the 1980s over a decade earlier then their F-4 Phantoms (1960-70s vintage and the opposite of stealth) as their main air defense fighter, only finally retiring it several years ago............that's not a testament to Russian technology, as at the time (early 1980s) the Mig-29 (and Su-27) was then reported to have both an advanced radar and infra-red search and tracking (IRST) system.....better than anything in the West.......in actual fact, no it doesn't......... The F-35's radar/DAS can track something as small as a mortar round or as fast as a ballistic missile........The West might start taking notice of the Russians (or Chinese) once they join the rest of the world in this century........ Edited June 23, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) No, per the head of the USAF's fighter force, the F-35's all aspect "stealth" is better than the F-22........the aircraft rumored to best all others is the B-2......which being apart of the nuclear triad, they won't publicly confirm. It is hard to tell for sure because all these aircraft are still somewhat secret. Only the F-35 is available outside the US, and then the foreign forces have yet to have full production aircraft to do their own assessment. The X-band radar cross section is what is commonly used to make comparisons, but even that is highly variable depending on direction. From that simplistic viewpoint, it appears that the F-35 is about half that of the old SR-71, the F-117 is slightly better, and the F-22 is significantly better. The information on the B2 is all over the map, which is not surprising because the Americans really want to keep it a secret. There are good reasons it might be better or worse than the others, personally I expect it is better and perhaps much better than the smaller F-22. Yes, I have heard the story about the F-35 being better than the F-22. Realize that the US wants to sell the F-35 and not the F-22. The F-22 is an air superiority aircraft, and the F-35 is not. Foreign buyers have been concerned about this so I believe that the US is positioning the F-35 as "better stealth" simply to sell it. One thing that is well known is the F-22 has much better design than the F-35 around the engine exhaust venting which can have a significant effect on the stealth characteristics. I expect the B-2 is way better than both in that department, but only the US military would know for sure. Edited June 23, 2016 by ?Impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 It is hard to tell for sure because all these aircraft are still somewhat secret. Only the F-35 is available outside the US, and then the foreign forces have yet to have full production aircraft to do their own assessment. The "foreign forces" are actually partners and receive the same data that the Americans have.......said data is not secret to said "forces". The X-band radar cross section is what is commonly used to make comparisons, but even that is highly variable depending on direction. From that simplistic viewpoint, it appears that the F-35 is about half that of the old SR-71, the F-117 is slightly better, and the F-22 is significantly better. The information on the B2 is all over the map, which is not surprising because the Americans really want to keep it a secret. There are good reasons it might be better or worse than the others, personally I expect it is better and perhaps much better than the smaller F-22. The rate of (radar) return of each aircraft isn't "commonly used to make comparisons", because said information isn't in the public sphere.........one thing is certain though, said aircraft (SR-71, F-117, F-22 and F-35) are all generational and all designed by Lockheed......even including the B-2 (Northrop Grumman) program, which leveraged technology on said program onto the F-35 (Northrop is a F-35 partner) ergo, from public statements, if the head of the USAF states the F-35 is more "stealthy" than the F-22 I will tend to believe him until proven otherwise.........and of course "radar cross section" is but one facet of "stealth", which again (from public information) will include the use of fuel as a heat sink to reduce the F-35's heat signature or the aircraft's new data link which will allow it to stealthy share information with other forces etc etc..... Yes, I have heard the story about the F-35 being better than the F-22. Realize that the US wants to sell the F-35 and not the F-22. The F-22 is an air superiority aircraft, and the F-35 is not. Foreign buyers have been concerned about this so I believe that the US is positioning the F-35 as "better stealth" simply to sell it. You are entitled to your conspiracy theory, as that is a story that you have heard.......I'll take a clear statement from the head of the USAF's fighter force, that clearly cites the differing attributes of each aircraft........good, bad and ugly.......combined with the realization that Lockheed would be capable of generational improvements between both aircraft it designed and built decades apart. One thing that is well known is the F-22 has much better design than the F-35 around the engine exhaust venting which can have a significant effect on the stealth characteristics. You are privy to the IR signatures of both aircraft, so much so, that you are qualified to make such a statement (and information) public? I expect the B-2 is way better than both in that department, but only the US military would know for sure. Yes, and is likely why the B-21 will share a similar basic wing/surface shape as the B-2. Quote 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.