CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 619
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:25 am
 


cyprien wrote:
air command doesn't decide what elements to send on a mission, the pm does. air command doesn't decide when to increase troop support, the pm does. the pm isn't going to spend billions of dollars to send air support to afghanistan when we'll be out of there soon.
yes the brits do. now that we have multi country missions, each country tends to be responsible for a single part of the mission.
and what would we shoot at? the little ant-sized guerillas? haven't seen too many taliban tanks in afghanistan.

CF-18's can carry bombs, big bombs, little bombs... bombs kill people... very effectively. Nothing like the big moral boost of going on an operation knowing that the Taliban are waiting for you and hearing time to impact 30 seconds, time to impact 10 seconds, and hearing the a thump, and no response from the Taliban side of the house. A very weak argument to say What would we shoot at??? Besides, If we deployed our own FAS it would be used by all allied nations not just Canada. Lets also be reasonable, I think its still 50/50 that come 2011 "combat" operations will cease but things like mentoring and our air units will still be in Afghanistan.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:58 am
 


My only concern with gunships is they didn't prove that effective in places like Bosnia, etc. be that from fear of losses from manpads or ground fire. If their forced to fly so high to avoid ground fire, their really no different than the A-10s.

I sometimes wonder if their just another silver bullet against the russian hords in the Fulda gap. In a mixed, chaotic enviroment, finding a safe hill to hide behind isn't so easy.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:43 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
EyeBrock wrote:
You don't have an airforce. You have Air Command which has no ability to project force past Newfoundland.


Not quite true, because with our air-to-air refueling planes, we could project force well out into any of the three oceans off our coasts.

EyeBrock wrote:
If we pay big bucks for having 80 Hornets that can't even give air cover to our troops, are we putting cash into the wrong things?
I think so.

That cash keeping the CF18s defending the St Lawrence seaway could be better spent having a Canadian Army Air Corps regiment of AH-64's.

Poo on the Griffons, get the real thing.


I agree that we should have CF-18s in the Stan, but it was O'Connor himself who said there was no need for them, which we both agreed was bollocks.

And we should have at least two regiments of Apaches or Tigers in service. Gunships are fast and provide a lot of punch.

DerbyX wrote:
Canada should be deciding on the next gen fighter and preparing to buy it in sufficient numbers.


We are, that's why we've contributed a couple hundred million to developing the JSF. I don't know if that is the right plane for us, but some in the CF think so.



I forgot about the Airbus's ATAR capabilities.

With that in mind I can't see why we can't deploy say four CF18's, have an Airbus in theatre for ATAR and a small det for servicing, arming etc.
O'Connor was and is a numpty. If the Cloggies can do it so can we.

All the rest of your post is right on!


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:09 pm
 


I wouldn't want the JSF covering my ass. Ignoring stealth, even with wing mounted munitions, it's performance would be severely degraded. I woudl have far more confidence in a fleet or Euro-fighters, F-15E's, or F-18Es and Warthogs.

And with Russia developing a new Stealth Fighter, we need something equivilent, which would knock everything but possibly the Eurofighter off the list, and the US wouldn't sell us the F-22 under Bush (maybe it will under Obama).


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21450
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:30 pm
 


EyeBrock wrote:
I forgot about the Airbus's ATAR capabilities.

With that in mind I can't see why we can't deploy say four CF18's, have an Airbus in theatre for ATAR and a small det for servicing, arming etc.
O'Connor was and is a numpty. If the Cloggies can do it so can we.

All the rest of your post is right on!


I agree, I'd like to see them there too, then they could get some real practice, instead of just shooting up wooden targets at Cold Lake.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Ottawa Senators
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7684
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:56 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
We are, that's why we've contributed a couple hundred million to developing the JSF. I don't know if that is the right plane for us, but some in the CF think so.


I don't think 65 airframes is sufficient (thats how big the planned F-35 buy is).

Countries the size of New Brunswick have bigger fighter forces than that.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Ottawa Senators


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17037
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:08 pm
 


Yeah, 65 fighters is not enough to defend Canada.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9956
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:15 pm
 


The Canadian military isn't enough to defend Canada and won't be until the country, hell, the world is actually threatened enough for Canada to grind the war gears like in WWI and II. What we need is top of the line armaments not cutting corners and wasting 500 million on 'repair' work or updating equipment from the Korean war. If Israel can have a smart, mobile hi-tech force (granted they need it more than us with hostiles all around them) than so can Canada.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Ottawa Senators
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7684
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:26 pm
 


Tman1 wrote:
What we need is top of the line armaments not cutting corners and wasting 500 million on 'repair' work or updating equipment from the Korean war.


Korean war? Hell our Armed Forces are STILL using WWII vintage equipment.

Look up the M101 (C3) howitzer... or the Browning Hi Power.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9956
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:28 pm
 


:lol: I thought of using the WWII analogy but thought our weapons were 'at least' up to the Korean War.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21450
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:52 am
 


saturn_656 wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
We are, that's why we've contributed a couple hundred million to developing the JSF. I don't know if that is the right plane for us, but some in the CF think so.


I don't think 65 airframes is sufficient (thats how big the planned F-35 buy is).

Countries the size of New Brunswick have bigger fighter forces than that.


The big problem is that those countries you mention (Japan, France, the UK for example) have far more population, and therefore tax base, then Canada does.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but we have to make tough choices, especially when new fighters cost upwards of $50 million each. Do we buy new DDHs and maintain our blue water capability or do we buy more fighters? Do we buy more tanks and APCs, or do we buy icebreakers to patrol the North?

Personally, in my ideal world, we'd have a large navy and air force and about the same size army (with the Militia being double or even triple what it is now). That would mean cutting back on overseas missions (like peacekeeping and Afghanistan), but I'd be fine with that if we maintained our blue water navy with Arctic capability and had more planes to patrol the approaches to the Canada.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:15 pm
 


EyeBrock wrote:
About time.
The next mission for Air Command should be deploying F18s to the Stan.
Our guys deserve our own aircraft doing CAPs.
The approaches to Quebec are very well defended by CF18's from CFB Bagotville.
Its time they stopped defending New France and provided close support for our infantry.


PDT_Armataz_01_37 [flag]


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19989
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:17 pm
 


Tman1 wrote:
:lol: I thought of using the WWII analogy but thought our weapons were 'at least' up to the Korean War.


Don't forget, until 1955 the Canadian army was still using the Lee Enfield Number 4 Mk I ....


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:20 pm
 


Arctic_Menace wrote:
Yeah, 65 fighters is not enough to defend Canada.


I cannot agree with you more.

What I keep advocating for Canada and for other 2nd tier powers is to have some cutting edge fighters for blunting attacks by nation states and then to have low-end fighters like the F-5 for doing grunt work like show-the-flag and basic patrol work. Better yet, I'd go so far as to advocate low-tech turbo-prop fighters for this kind of grunt work.

The cost of one JSF could mean five or six F-5 fighters for grunt work.





PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:32 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
EyeBrock wrote:
I forgot about the Airbus's ATAR capabilities.

With that in mind I can't see why we can't deploy say four CF18's, have an Airbus in theatre for ATAR and a small det for servicing, arming etc.
O'Connor was and is a numpty. If the Cloggies can do it so can we.

All the rest of your post is right on!


I agree, I'd like to see them there too, then they could get some real practice, instead of just shooting up wooden targets at Cold Lake.



Wooden targets?
The CLAWR is ten thousand square miles of shooting gallery. :lol:


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.