 Canadian jets repelled Russian bombers: MacKay Two days after Canadian fighter jets were scrambled to intercept a pair of Russian bombers off the coast of Newfoundland, Defence Minister Peter MacKay says any future incursions can expect the same swift response.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
It's more than just show particulary as Russia in intersted in gobbling up as much of the Arctic as possible.
Interesting how this happens just as harper is trying to sell us on new aircraft.. can you say fishy or maybe con job
Yeah. Harper called up the Russian and said come buzz us.
That's one of the more retarded foilerisms on the threads these days...
I don't really have an opinion either way on this particular article, mind. The story that our pilots scrambled and got there quickly was good news, and I am glad to hear that they are readily able to act expediently.
Interesting how this happens just as harper is trying to sell us on new aircraft.. can you say fishy or maybe con job
It just highlights once again that we don't need the F-35 for these kinds of missions which is what we actually need. The Eurofighter or even better the super-hornet can do the same job with a much easier burden on the tax-payer
Interesting how this happens just as harper is trying to sell us on new aircraft.. can you say fishy or maybe con job
It just highlights once again that we don't need the F-35 for these kinds of missions which is what we actually need. The Eurofighter or even better the super-hornet can do the same job with a much easier burden on the tax-payer
Interesting how this happens just as harper is trying to sell us on new aircraft.. can you say fishy or maybe con job
It just highlights once again that we don't need the F-35 for these kinds of missions which is what we actually need. The Eurofighter or even better the super-hornet can do the same job with a much easier burden on the tax-payer
Don't blame me if the governments agenda is to obvious, did the Cf-18's intercept these aricraft or not? If the did then it seems clear that they're doing their job. And qhile i do agree the Air force need new units, i don't think sticking the tax-payer with a 19 billion dollar tab for F-35's is reasonable condering this
We can do the dame job with different aircraft and do it cheaper.
Now instead of yipping along, come up with facts and figures to prove your case or ill take this as a your acknowledgment of the correctness my argument.
Don't blame me if the governments agenda is to obvious, did the Cf-18's intercept these aricraft or not? If the did then it seems clear that they're doing their job. And qhile i do agree the Air force need new units, i don't think sticking the tax-payer with a 19 billion dollar tab for F-35's is reasonable condering this
We can do the dame job with different aircraft and do it cheaper.
Now instead of yipping along, come up with facts and figures to prove your case or ill take this as a your acknowledgment of the correctness my argument.
Don't blame me if the governments agenda is to obvious, did the Cf-18's intercept these aricraft or not? If the did then it seems clear that they're doing their job. And qhile i do agree the Air force need new units, i don't think sticking the tax-payer with a 19 billion dollar tab for F-35's is reasonable condering this
We can do the dame job with different aircraft and do it cheaper.
Now instead of yipping along, come up with facts and figures to prove your case or ill take this as a your acknowledgment of the correctness my argument.
Yes yes yes we know you're out of arguments, you can at least take comfort in the fact that you didn't have much of chance
See any piston engine fighters in the US or Canadian militaries anymore? See any in any of the Western nations airforces?
That being said, I still think we need a twin engine fighter for Arctic patrols and scrambles like the one in the article. 65 fighters is also not enough to fill 3 complete squadrons.
On the facts and figures side the price tag is $9 billion, a little over twice what the Superhornet would cost. But with the bill comes associated weapons, infrastructure, initial spares, training simulators, contingency funds and project operating costs all included. I don't know if the Superhornet program would come with all that support although Boeing did say they would make our version completely in Canada.
Comparisons: F-35 stealth fighter. Superhornet isn't
F-35 top speed - 2065kph. Superhornet top speed - 1900kph
F-35 Combat Radius- 610nmi. Superhornet Combat Radius- 390nmi
F-35 design limit- 9g's. Superhornet design limit- 7.6 g's
F-35 guns- 1 x 25mm cannon internally mounted. Superhornet guns-nosemounted 1 x 20mm Vulcan gatling gun.
F-35 hardpoints-6 external points on wings plus 4 in the internal bays for an ordinance payload of 18,000 lbs
Superhornet hardpoints- 11 for a total payload of 17,750 lbs but that's with external fuel tanks as well. The F-35 requires no external fuel tanks.
F-35 thrust/weight ratio .80 with full tanks, .97 with 50% fuel. Thrust with afterburner 43,000 lbf
Superhornet thrust/weight ratio .93 with 22,000 lbf of thrust with afterburner for each engine.
I'm not coming out in favour of one or the other in this post, just giving you some facts and figures to mull over as you asked.
During the Vietnam war, piston engine aircraft were still performing CAS in the jet era. Just cuz they can doesn't mean they're going to be able to in the near future.
See any piston engine fighters in the US or Canadian militaries anymore? See any in any of the Western nations airforces?
That being said, I still think we need a twin engine fighter for Arctic patrols and scrambles like the one in the article. 65 fighters is also not enough to fill 3 complete squadrons.
On the facts and figures side the price tag is $9 billion, a little over twice what the Superhornet would cost. But with the bill comes associated weapons, infrastructure, initial spares, training simulators, contingency funds and project operating costs all included. I don't know if the Superhornet program would come with all that support although Boeing did say they would make our version completely in Canada.
Comparisons: F-35 stealth fighter. Superhornet isn't
F-35 top speed - 2065kph. Superhornet top speed - 1900kph
F-35 Combat Radius- 610nmi. Superhornet Combat Radius- 390nmi
F-35 design limit- 9g's. Superhornet design limit- 7.6 g's
F-35 guns- 1 x 25mm cannon internally mounted. Superhornet guns-nosemounted 1 x 20mm Vulcan gatling gun.
F-35 hardpoints-6 external points on wings plus 4 internal bays for an ordinance payload of 18,000 lbs
Superhornet hardpoints- 11 for a total payload of 17,750 lbs but that's with external fuel tanks as well. The F-35 requires no external fuel tanks.
F-35 thrust/weight ration .80 with full tanks, .97 with 50% fuel. Thrust with afterburner 43,000 lbf
Superhornet thrust/weight ratio .93 with 22,000 lbs of thrust with afterburner.
Basically, the F-35 will out accelerate the hell out of a Superhornet. And with fighter aircraft speed is life. Not just top speed but how quickly you can achieve it.
I'm not coming out in favour of one or the other in this post, just giving you some facts and figures to mull over as you asked.
Actually the price for the F-35 plan is 19 billion of the period of the program. and to answer your question. Is the super-hornet or the Eurofighter incapable of defending our airspace against the proposed waves of Russian bombers that will appear over the pole any day now from what some people like to think will happen?