As for the stealthyness of submarines: Every other year Sweden puts out a singular submarine against a fully complimented US aircraft carrier.
Every time they do it, the submarine sinks that carrier like it was shooting fish in a barrel.
I mean technically, if North Korea could sneak a re-fuelling tanker to Hawaii, there could be a North Korean submarine off the coast of California right now. Thats the extent of the US submarine tracking capability.
Personally I think perception of capability and competency goes hand in hand in whether or not you believe the moon landing. Suggested superiority breeds complacency.
As for the stealthyness of submarines: Every other year Sweden puts out a singular submarine against a fully complimented US aircraft carrier.
Every time they do it, the submarine sinks that carrier like it was shooting fish in a barrel.
I mean technically, if North Korea could sneak a re-fuelling tanker to Hawaii, there could be a North Korean submarine off the coast of California right now. Thats the extent of the US submarine tracking capability.
Personally I think perception of capability and competency goes hand in hand in whether or not you believe the moon landing. Suggested superiority breeds complacency.
HMCS Victoria went on a rampage at RIMPAC a few years back. Won countless exercises vs other NATO subs and surface groups. Also did a live MK48 shoot ex and sunk a target ship. Good video below.
https://vimeo.com/54048119 At 14:45 to 15:05 you can hear what it sounds like aboard a sub when a live MK48 torpedo hits a target ship about a few nautical miles away.
HMCS Corner Brook sunk a British ASW helicopter carrier, their varsity ship for ASW, in an exercise a while back as well. Also sim-sank the carrier's frigate/destroyer screen as well. Attack periscope picture of the simulated MK48 shots into HMS Illustrious by HMCS Corner Brook. Yes B'y.
The submarine always has a significant advantage vs surface ships. Historically the greatest threat to aircraft carriers has always been subs, from WW2 to now.
Very possible that the USA will EOL the F-35 line and just go with "the F-16V, F/A-18E/F Block III, and F-15EX, and even a quickly developed, sub-fifth generation fighter like the F-36 Kingsnake."
No way they eol f35. Sounds like some politician talking shit. Canada is a laughing stock purchasing high hour airframes instead of purchasing f35, especially since Canada was a participant in the jsf program. Politicians should not be deciding equipment purchases for military if we want any sort of operable force.
Democrat Congressman from California has a conniption on loud things that consume fossil fuels, what else is new. The program is bigger than some whiny politician from a hipster flower child state. HA. Ha.
I always forget that there was a time when people were okay with a multi-billion dollar single-source contract with no business case for the government to go ahead with. But here we are.
Of course they can EOL. Its literally what every USA hardware tech manufacturer does every few years. Want newest and best? Move from 775 pins to 1151 in small increments to make it physically incompatible with last years model.
The only real reason there should be any talk of ending the F35 line early, is that the USAF/contractors in a single year (10 months actually), built a flying demonstrator 6th Gen Next Generation Air Dominance fighter, that is very likely capable of long endurance supercruise, very, very high mach number max speed, even more advanced low observability, and a melding of F35/F22 a sensors and ECM, and massive improvements on those. Just google NGAG fighter and you'll get a bunch of interesting articles about it. They built it mainly with COTS parts, and the USAF have said they could spin up mass production very quickly due to the methods used to design and build the demonstrator. Still, the USAF/USN/USMC/World needs the F35, it's not some lame duck, it's the opposite. That said, the NGAD will be an effective follow on to the F22 for sure, as there are only 125=ish combat coded airframes, and at any given time less than 72 that are combat capable. VS China, that's not so good.
If you click this link, the image on the left of the USAF's magazine is apparently a rough outline of what it looks like.
Even that’s a stretch. All fighters go through rigorous cold climate testing, saying the Gripen is designed for the cold is asinine and nothing but marketing bs. $100m fighters are not kept outside overnight in the winter.
Even that’s a stretch. All fighters go through rigorous cold climate testing, saying the Gripen is designed for the cold is asinine and nothing but marketing bs. $100m fighters are not kept outside overnight in the winter.
This is just opinion, but I would argue that, on average (eg. winter deployment to Alaska), the Gripen would fare better if parked outside overnight in -30c than the latest iterations of the F16.
This is just opinion, but I would argue that, on average (eg. winter deployment to Alaska), the Gripen would fare better if parked outside overnight in -30c than the latest iterations of the F16.
Why? The Gripen uses largely US-made components. Again, your hypothetical winter deployment doesn’t happen. We always went south, not north, during the winter months, the weather is much nicer for all aspects of ops. The F-16s of Eielson and F-22s of Anchorage all have hangar spots, they don’t sit outside overnight for any reason. Planning any sort of winter ex, even in Canada, hangar space for every aircraft is the first mandatory requirement. The Gripen won’t fare any better or worse and will require the same logistics as any other fighter.
Why? The Gripen uses largely US-made components. Again, your hypothetical winter deployment doesn’t happen. We always went south, not north, during the winter months, the weather is much nicer for all aspects of ops. The F-16s of Eielson and F-22s of Anchorage all have hangar spots, they don’t sit outside overnight for any reason. Planning any sort of winter ex, even in Canada, hangar space for every aircraft is the first mandatory requirement. The Gripen won’t fare any better or worse and will require the same logistics as any other fighter.
Although you might be correct that the new fighers for Canada might never be stored in the cold outside, my statement of the Gripen being better equipped to handle this is more likely correct.
However, the Gripen is more designed for quick defense in a remote, quick response role (ie in the woods of Sweden) rather than what Canada might need - extended CAP missions.
However you are incorrect asserting the Gripen requires exactly the same logistics.
Instead of aircraft being serviced at fixed repair depots, mobile maintenance crews, driving vans and military trucks, bring fuel, munitions and parts to the aircraft’s position. Refuelling and rearming – including reloading the gun and attaching air-to-air missiles – can be done in less than 10min with one enlisted technician and five conscript mechanics, claims Saab. Maintenance equipment fits in a single small shipping container.
These are all claims, by Saab themselves for an unrealistic scenario in the real world. Nothing is stopping us from landing the F-18s in the middle of nowhere to practice this nonsense, I don’t even remember if doing something like this was even discussed. There is no point. If your airfields and FOLs are destroyed with aircraft still flying, landing them in remote locations like highways and getting them refuelled and rearmed is a trivial practice. If you are landing on highways because your bases are gone, we’ve ready lost and getting them back in the air is pointless. These are all marketing gimics by Saab, their PR department are lies and fake news. No one wants their jet.
Quote
Originally Posted by ZenOps
