Quantcast
F-35 Lightning II Discussion - Page 35 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 35 of 43 FirstFirst ... 25 34 35 36 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 700 of 856

Thread: F-35 Lightning II Discussion

  1. #681
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gman.45 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Of course they do. During 9/11, there was a plane coming through our Northern airspace (one of the Asian carriers IIRC), and the pilot fucked up his transponder settings plus there were comm issues, so NORAD/etc decided it was a potential hostile suicide plane. Well, the RCAF wasn't able to do the intercept, and the USAF had to send up F16s and tanker assets to do so, and they did. So, yes, the USA obviously has both the capability, and plans (they have plans for many contingencies), for coming into Canadian airspace to deal with potential threats. Still, we're part of NORAD, and to give up our say in what happens during intercepts in our airspace, is exactly what you're suggesting Buster, as your drone idea is decades away from being feasible. Your points might be valid, but in a war time setting, or even just footing, they'll go right out the window, and everyone will be screeching about why we weren't better prepared and able to have our own defenses. You can count on that, it's a historical certainty.

    Your position should surprise me considering your family history on this subject, but it doesn't, as like I said, your points have validity should the shaky peace between CHina, Russia, and the USA/NATO continue. If it doesn't, we'll need the new fighters. We can't count on USAF/USN/USMC support, as they may have their own problems to deal with, and/or their bases, runways, and aircraft caught on the ground might be smoking holes in that ground. Then what.

    Also, just giving up our fighter capability essentially rolls back the defensive lines Russia would have to deal with back hundreds of kms, if not thousands. Giving Russia free bonuses these days isn't a real great idea, based on their recent behavior in the Ukraine, Crimea, Lith/Lat/Estonia, and so on. You should know how short ranged modern fighters are, and counting on USA fighter assets to be able to stretch up here to defend our airspace from their bases down in the USA.

    edit - however downvoted Jutes = giant homo.
    Canada's warfighting (and dare I say it, defense) capability is just kabuki theater. You're suggesting keeping up a pretense that none of the actors think is real. So we're pretending to be able to defend our own borders for nothing other than domestic perception/delusion. Canadians think we are owed things like national healthcare, or a "green economy" that causes us to self-immolate our export industries. Meanwhile, that's all being subsidized by the 800 pound gorilla with whom we happen to share a border.

    If Canadians don't like the idea of not controlling our own airspace, which we do not anyway, F-35's or otherwise, then maybe then should stop behaving so...Canadian. We may as well commit ourselves to doing something that we can do well, and that is surveillance, monitoring and a peacetime interdiction role.

  2. #682
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    ehhh...in reality there's not a lot of militaries that could potentially fend off Russia if they really decided to annex an island in the far north in a move to extend their arctic sovereignty. We'd definitely end up relying on the US and other allies to assist us in that case, but that's part of the reason we want to keep on holding up our part of the bargain. Same thing with Norway, they do their part on the arctic Sovereignty not because they think they could fend off Russia if they really decided to make a move, but because that's their part to play in the grand scheme of things.

    Going back to early 2020 Norway sent their F-35 force to do their QRA mission out of Iceland.

    In case anyone thinks these airspace probes are a rare event, the Norwegians actually publish a graph of how many potential targets of Russian origin they identified, and how many times they scrambled the QRA force year over year...it's more than you'd think.

    Name:  RNoAF_scrambles.jpg
Views: 242
Size:  55.3 KB
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  3. #683
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pallet Town
    Posts
    809
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Well, assuming ground force takeover of land. Submarines hold many many more polaris bombs than even a B2 bomber. They can literally stuff 40 nukes in one as long as you are willing to wait two weeks for it to get into position. A bomber usually only holds a handful, one that can make the long arctic trip could arguably hold two nukes.

    I would say that there is a 99.99% chance that Russia could hide a nuke submarine in Hudsons bay and take out the entire US east coast - if you want to talk destruction.

    A F-35 obviously has no capability to take out a submarine under a hundred feet of water or completely undetectable under ice.

    The scenario that the USA is worried about is infiltration of northern Canada, which arguably you could do over a period of years as long as you don't do the east or west coast. Its actually much much easier to see a plane than a submarine.
    Last edited by ZenOps; 12-23-2020 at 03:08 PM.
    0.5 gram microsd delivered by 12,000 pound combustion vehicle and driver.

  4. #684
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    407
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenOps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well, assuming ground force takeover of land. Submarines hold many many more polaris bombs than even a B2 bomber. They can literally stuff 40 nukes in one as long as you are willing to wait two weeks for it to get into position. A bomber usually only holds a handful, one that can make the long arctic trip could arguably hold two nukes.

    I would say that there is a 99.99% chance that Russia could hide a nuke submarine in Hudsons bay and take out the entire US east coast - if you want to talk destruction.

    A F-35 obviously has no capability to take out a submarine under a hundred feet of water or completely undetectable under ice.

    The scenario that the USA is worried about is infiltration of northern Canada, which arguably you could do over a period of years as long as you don't do the east or west coast. Its actually much much easier to see a plane than a submarine.
    Ok, Zenops, you're talking about 2 different things, strategic and tactical warfare. First, A B52, B2, or B1B, can carry (B52 at least), externally dozen(s) of short range attack missiles, that used to be nuclear armed, to shoot its way into Russia/wherever, by taking out SAM/C3 sites with those nuclear armed pew pews. Then inside, there are multiple types of launchers and rail systems, rotary and otherwise, that can hold dozens, like several dozen of the B61/83 air dropped nuclear bombs. We're talking many dozens here of those, and dozens of cruise missiles as another loadout internally, and this is on top of the externally carried SRAM missiles.

    Yes, an SSBN Ballistic Missile submarine will carry more warheads, the US subs typically have 22 to 24 Trident Missiles, each with a number of warheads, MIRV/multiple independ re entry vehicles (ie pointy little warheads), usually 8 on US subs, and up to 10 or more on Russians. Essentially 200+ warheads on a typical US, Russian, Chinese, UK, French, etc SSBN. It only takes a few bombers to carry that number of warheads, the difference is on the method they are deployed, and staged (big time).

    The F35 would never likely be tasked with smoking an SSBN, but there are lots of aircraft that have air dropped anti sub weapons that can, Canada even has some right now, and is in the process of possibly upgrading that capability with new planes/weapons. NOT a fighter's job, to "sink a Russian sub under the ice", that's not their tasking, anywhere.

    You can be very certain that any threat SSBN under the artic ice will have a NATO sub shadow, and that's what is tasked with taking out such a threat, NOT an F35 or any other fighter, ever.

  5. #685
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    407
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go4Long View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ehhh...in reality there's not a lot of militaries that could potentially fend off Russia if they really decided to annex an island in the far north in a move to extend their arctic sovereignty. We'd definitely end up relying on the US and other allies to assist us in that case, but that's part of the reason we want to keep on holding up our part of the bargain. Same thing with Norway, they do their part on the arctic Sovereignty not because they think they could fend off Russia if they really decided to make a move, but because that's their part to play in the grand scheme of things.

    Going back to early 2020 Norway sent their F-35 force to do their QRA mission out of Iceland.

    In case anyone thinks these airspace probes are a rare event, the Norwegians actually publish a graph of how many potential targets of Russian origin they identified, and how many times they scrambled the QRA force year over year...it's more than you'd think.

    Name:  RNoAF_scrambles.jpg
Views: 242
Size:  55.3 KB
    Agreed - the UK's chart is similar, a huge number of Russian incursions testing their defenses reaction times and details, as well as just being a general pain in the ass. (Many countries do it to one extent or another).

  6. #686
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    407
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buster View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Canada's warfighting (and dare I say it, defense) capability is just kabuki theater. You're suggesting keeping up a pretense that none of the actors think is real. So we're pretending to be able to defend our own borders for nothing other than domestic perception/delusion. Canadians think we are owed things like national healthcare, or a "green economy" that causes us to self-immolate our export industries. Meanwhile, that's all being subsidized by the 800 pound gorilla with whom we happen to share a border.

    If Canadians don't like the idea of not controlling our own airspace, which we do not anyway, F-35's or otherwise, then maybe then should stop behaving so...Canadian. We may as well commit ourselves to doing something that we can do well, and that is surveillance, monitoring and a peacetime interdiction role.
    I don't think the Canadians you're referring to so far as those wanting the green economy, free (shitty) healthcare, and willing to trade our economy and businesses in non green sectors for it, will ever know or care about NORAD and our borders...so you're right. That said, if Canada was to make them and their ideas incapable of affecting our industries, then there would be funds, and attitudes with the Canadians who aren't diluted leftists, to make our defense department more than "Kabuki" theater.

    I understand, and agree with what you're saying regarding how things stand right now, but I still maintain that having an effective fighter force is needed, just doing ISR isn't enough, you need to be able to ACT on the intel ISR gives you, it's an important step in any kill chain chart you'll ever find. Also, the interception role, again, isn't possible with UAVs/UCAVs yet, especially in peacetime where it isn't just a find/fix/kill type of deal that needs to be coded into the UCAVs.

    I don't want free Canadian healthcare, a "Green leftist economy", and especially don't want to destroy our current business/industry/exports more than what's already been done since 2015. I do understand the effects of these things that you're describing Buster, but that doesn't mean it should be accepted, and that we should throw in the towel so to speak, and just got to a toothless posture regarding ISR that you're suggesting. What's the point of surveillance if you can't act on the intel it gives you (ie no Fighters to fly out to whatever the UAVs have detected)?!

    Again, we may share the border with the USA, but even in a limited war, their assets are in most cases based too far away to deal with potential threats to us in Canada, especially an effective amount of time. Short of basing US forces in Canada, hoping for American forces to "come save us" because we share a common border won't happen, short of them basing their forces here. I'd be willing to accept that, Trudeau/lefitsts..I doubt it. So, if you want to slap a label on something vis a vis theater, hoping for US immediate intervention to protect our airspace and territory fits the bill.
    Last edited by Gman.45; 12-23-2020 at 04:22 PM.

  7. #687
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North North Dakota
    My Ride
    Nissan x2
    Posts
    583
    Rep Power
    49

    Default

    Whatever your overall view of our military may be, don't forget the tens if not 100s of thousands of jobs in Canada that are related to DND. The F-35 program in Canada employs 10,000 people and if selected, the program will bring upward of 50,000 permanent jobs for decades. This isn't the oil sector where jobs come and go on a weekly basis, the Defence Aerospace programs are true long term careers. Going back to jobs, how many people will the Gripen employ once all the airframes are assembled and those line workers are laid off? What about the Super dooper Hornet? It's a fine aircraft and would probably, barely, meet our needs, but the line and support staff are already set up, Canada would gain nothing more from it other than long-term overhaul in Mirabel. Nothing currently matches the F-35 in capability and industrial offset, which in retrospect is way more important than whatever way you view the RCAF as a whole.

    Pretty cool video on the A330 MRTT conversion in Spain. I really hope they pick this aircraft and just send the things there. Our welfare francophone province needs to stay away from any possible conversions, it will only cause delays and cost increases.


  8. #688
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jutes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    don't forget the tens if not 100s of thousands of jobs in Canada that are related to DND. The F-35 program in Canada employs 10,000 people and if selected, the program will bring upward of 50,000 permanent jobs for decades. This isn't the oil sector where jobs come and go on a weekly basis, the Defence Aerospace programs are true long term careers.
    Best argument I've heard against F-35s so far.

  9. #689
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    calgary
    My Ride
    CLK 55 / 2g Eclipse / EP3
    Posts
    4,422
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    agreed with Canada taking on a larger % of the military industrial complex equation - its one sector that's basically backed by the entire deep state cabal and msm (and ignored completely by climate change alarmists).

  10. #690
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pallet Town
    Posts
    809
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Computer programmers motto: The single best thing you can do is obsolete yourself. The second best thing you can do is obsolete the people around you.

    Destroying the millions of jobs that switchboard operators had to do, was one of the greatest advancements in history that pushed humanity to greater efficiencies and goals.
    I am solidly on destroying jobs being a top rated goal. All delivery jobs by combustion engine should be eliminated. Agree with me, and you get 5 pound pizza delivery for 1/2 cent of electricity delivery cost.

    Gotta destroy them jobs faster, humanity deserves it.
    Last edited by ZenOps; 12-23-2020 at 05:55 PM.
    0.5 gram microsd delivered by 12,000 pound combustion vehicle and driver.

  11. #691
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North North Dakota
    My Ride
    Nissan x2
    Posts
    583
    Rep Power
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buster View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Best argument I've heard against F-35s so far.
    Now you are just trolling.

  12. #692
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jutes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Now you are just trolling.
    No I'm not. Governments don't create jobs, they just spend the proceeds of economic activity elsewhere. There is no good economic argument for buying airplanes. There might be other reasons to do it but "creating jobs" isn't one of them.

  13. #693
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Silverado
    Posts
    3,090
    Rep Power
    47

    Default

    The best part is they'd give Quebec most of the jobs anyways

  14. #694
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    calgary
    My Ride
    CLK 55 / 2g Eclipse / EP3
    Posts
    4,422
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    If I was in charge of the American military industrial complex, I would find a way to indirectly pay off the Russians to fly their ancient bombers around - 'threatening' the North, etc. The payoff is in the billions per year of funding and guarantees future funding.

    A weak russia means less dollars to the MIC - this is what happened in the 90s.

  15. #695
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtsniffer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The best part is they'd give Quebec most of the jobs anyways
    Saab's proposal actually has the jets being assembled in Nova Scotia by IMP...Lockheed the jobs are spread around to various facilities around Canada.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  16. #696
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Homeless
    My Ride
    Blue Dabadee
    Posts
    9,599
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Isn’t Saab owned by China? Or is that just the cars?

    I mean we already let China handle our embassy security so what do we care.
    Originally posted by Thales of Miletus

    If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
    Originally posted by Toma
    fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yolobimmer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    guessing who I might be, psychologizing me with your non existent degree.

  17. #697
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Saab aircraft is very Swedish.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  18. #698
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Silverado
    Posts
    3,090
    Rep Power
    47

    Default

    Put together with a single wrench?

  19. #699
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Homeless
    My Ride
    Blue Dabadee
    Posts
    9,599
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go4Long View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Saab aircraft is very Swedish.
    Is it made of wood?
    Originally posted by Thales of Miletus

    If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
    Originally posted by Toma
    fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yolobimmer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    guessing who I might be, psychologizing me with your non existent degree.

  20. #700
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtsniffer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Put together with a single wrench?
    Yes, and the stupid screws strip really easily.

    Quote Originally Posted by killramos View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Is it made of wood?
    No, but funny airplane trivia...

    The CF-18's first flew in 1978. 42 years ago. If you went back 42 years from that the aircraft would have been made out of wood...and often still have fabric wings...our last Sopwith camel was only retired in 1929.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

Page 35 of 43 FirstFirst ... 25 34 35 36 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. EGT discussion

    By Hollywood in forum Mechanical
    Replies: 18
    Latest Threads: 04-01-2003, 11:44 PM
  2. MX-3 Discussion

    By shay in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 52
    Latest Threads: 02-15-2003, 12:24 AM
  3. VTEC discussion (from iVTEC sticker thread)

    By THREE40SEVEN in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 25
    Latest Threads: 02-04-2003, 09:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •