[Wullu]

Thanks to our Dutch allies.

20 2A4s
60 2A6s
20 Engineering variants.

$650 million that had been already alotted for a system that been canceled

In addition to the 20 2A6Ms that we are borrowing from the Germans.

link

[RUEZ]

Awesome.

[xerxes]

A good buy.

[-Mario-]

And they will get them this summer..... this is freaking awesome... I wish we could get our birds in the same timely matter....

[Wullu]

Well the USAF did let us jump the que for the Globemasters...

Speaking of which. Any word on what the designator is we are going to attach to them? CC-17?

[Winnipegger]

Um, why would we want to buy tanks? Tanks as a concept are obsolete. So is self-propelled artillery. Attack helicopters have already replaced self-propelled artillery. We haven't used our tanks in 30 years before the Afghan mission, they're superfluous. A "mobile gun system" is equally dumb; same reason.

If you want to do something useful, get our all our CF-18 aircraft operational. It's called close air support. I've read only 24 CF-18A (single seat) aircraft are operational out of Cold Lake Alberta, and 24 more CF-18A aircraft in Quebec. We have 40 CF-18B (double seat) aircraft, used primarily for training. The remaining 33 CF-18A aircraft are in storage. Combat range is limited, although can be extended for special missions by mid-air refuelling. We have 2 A310 aircraft configured as tankers for that purpose, and Hercules cargo aircraft can carry a tank for refuelling as well. However, we hold the airports in Kandahar and Kabul. We already have armoured personnel carriers for troops. If you really want to buy something, get F-35B Lightning II aircraft, the one developed under the Joint Strike Fighter program. The 'B' version is the one with a lift fan for vertical take-off and landing; it replaces the Harrier II. Canada was part of the development, we build some of the parts, that enables us to purchase these aircraft. A Canadian military officer was part of the unveiling ceremony at the Paris air show. Why would we have spent the money to participate in development if we didn't intend to buy them?

[BartSimpson]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Tanks as a concept are obsolete.

No, crappy tanks are obsolete. The Iraqis are painfully aware of this.

The M1 Abrams variants are just peachy and they do great when employed as tanks and not as overweight police cars.

[Scape]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

It's called close air support.

Ever heard of the Soviet Hind attack helo? How that work out?

US attack choppers are shot down in Iraq all the time and weather is a factor far more for air support than the tank.

[Arctic_Menace]

$1:

Thanks to our Dutch allies.

20 2A4s
60 2A6s
20 Engineering variants.

$650 million that had been already alotted for a system that been canceled

In addition to the 20 2A6Ms that we are borrowing from the Germans.

link

We're getting Leopard 2's?!?!


Fuckin sweet!

[Arctic_Menace]

$1:

Um, why would we want to buy tanks? Tanks as a concept are obsolete. So is self-propelled artillery. Attack helicopters have already replaced self-propelled artillery. We haven't used our tanks in 30 years before the Afghan mission, they're superfluous. A "mobile gun system" is equally dumb; same reason.

If you want to do something useful, get our all our CF-18 aircraft operational. It's called close air support. I've read only 24 CF-18A (single seat) aircraft are operational out of Cold Lake Alberta, and 24 more CF-18A aircraft in Quebec. We have 40 CF-18B (double seat) aircraft, used primarily for training. The remaining 33 CF-18A aircraft are in storage. Combat range is limited, although can be extended for special missions by mid-air refuelling. We have 2 A310 aircraft configured as tankers for that purpose, and Hercules cargo aircraft can carry a tank for refuelling as well. However, we hold the airports in Kandahar and Kabul. We already have armoured personnel carriers for troops. If you really want to buy something, get F-35B Lightning II aircraft, the one developed under the Joint Strike Fighter program. The 'B' version is the one with a lift fan for vertical take-off and landing; it replaces the Harrier II. Canada was part of the development, we build some of the parts, that enables us to purchase these aircraft. A Canadian military officer was part of the unveiling ceremony at the Paris air show. Why would we have spent the money to participate in development if we didn't intend to buy them?

Aren't you just precious...

[canuckns]

w00t to the Leo 2s

Snd the DEE DEE DEE award goes to Winnipegger

[Arctic_Menace]

$1:

Snd the DEE DEE DEE award goes to Winnipegger

Who came up with that award? Does Carlos Mencia frequent here?

[Winnipegger]

Ever heard of the Advanced Tactical Laser? It's a Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) producing 100kW with a little ball turret. The American air force deployed it on a C-130 Hercules. Stupid application of a great technology, it reminds me of Nazi's at the end of World War 2; they developed the jet engine but their leader Adolph Hitler demanded they use it on bombers instead of escort fighters. New high speed weaponry is best used for defence, not offence. As one American general pointed out, their big building-size laser turret designed to shoot satellites draws so much power it causes all the lights in the neighbouring city to dim, but it only delivers as much energy on-target as a single bag of high explosive. That was his argument, I point out that it doesn't matter how much energy your high explosive has if it can't hit the target. A laser can react so fast it can destroy an anti-aircraft or anti-ship missile in mid-air. Industrial COIL lasers are 30kW and cut through steel plate, the 100kW laser cuts through metal that much faster. So put one of these on each helicopter and it's immune to missiles. The laser won't stop small arms fire, but the titanium bathtub the pilot sits in and the titanium engine intake shield are plenty.

By the way, I've heard a rumour missile developers are working on a missile based on SCRAM jet technology that flies at mach 10. One guy claims he heard they're working on a mach 15 missile. NASA did demonstrate the X-43A, a 12-foot UAV that uses liquid hydrogen to fly at mach 9.8, and ATK Thiokol (manufacturer of most American missiles) demonstrated a UAV at mach 6 using JP5 jet fuel. ATK Thiokol also got the contract from NASA to explore hypersonic technology to mach 20. NASA wants a single-stage space shuttle, but one guess what a missile manufacturer will do with the technology. The Phalanx on navy ships can't hit a mach 10 missile, and the Sea Sparrow at mach 4 can't hit a mach 10 missile either. A laser can.

But that's short-term development (the advanced tactical laser has already been demonstrated), we need something now. A CF-18 flies high enough to avoid shoulder launch missiles. Just use Air-to-Ground Missiles (AGM) to take out emplacements too well fortified for army troops.

[Wullu]

Mis-read the article I found.

40 2A4s
40 2A6s
20 Engineer Variant

[ridenrain]

So we get the tanks we wanted without it costing us any new money?
Yahoo!

I just want to ensure I'm on prior record suggesting that we'll send our existing leopards, along with everything else we don't want to bring back, and give it to the peoples of Afghanistan for their mutual defence. With training, it would give the Afghan army a definate boost and move foreward the time when we can leave them on their own.