|
Flanker posted:I think it's strange that we so quickly rule out Russian aircraft because they're not in NATO but everyone is basically assuming we'll jump on the Gripen even though Sweden isn't in NATO either. Canada had to contract Ukrainian aircraft to move our gear to Afghanistan because at the time our strategic lift was non existent. Ideally, since you didn't go through FMS in the first place, should just call up Boeing IDS and order another few dozen Hornets. But that would be sane.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
movax posted:Ideally, since you didn't go through FMS in the first place, should just call up Boeing IDS and order another few dozen Hornets. But that would be sane. WHAT DO THESE MURDER JETS HAVE TO DO WITH PEACEKEEPING!? --Opposition parties and Canadian media
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
Flanker posted:WHAT DO THESE MURDER JETS HAVE TO DO WITH PEACEKEEPING!? They are "cheap" twin-engine trainer aircraft. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
Flanker posted:WHAT DO THESE MURDER JETS HAVE TO DO WITH PEACEKEEPING!? Seriously, I hope history looks back at the time when not one but many countries put almost all of their eggs into one basket for the next generation of planes and says  , especially when that basket can't hold the eggs and bursts into flames from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 06:57
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Dunno about the Soviets, but the CBU-97 basically works like that. It identifies targets by IR signature and laser outline. The CBU-97 is a pretty cool weapon:      Taken at the Air Force Armament Museum outside of Eglin AFB down in Florida. They had a video playing where that TACP described the drop, which was pretty mind blowing. He was inserted with an ODA in the vicinity of Kirkuk when OIF kicked off, and he called in an airstrike on an Iraqi armored column...one B-52, 16 CBU-105s (CBU-97 with a WCMD tailkit), hundreds of destroyed Iraqi vehicles. He described how one of the submunitions managed to destroy a jeep that was traveling at a good rate of speed, weaving in between the armored vehicles. Flanker posted:To address the first half more directly: Yeah, I excluded the former Eastern Bloc countries from my generalization since they are generally going to be much more familiar with the equipment and some of it is still legacy stuff from the Cold War. To me there is a difference (mentally and geopolitically) between contracting with some folks for a couple An-124s to fly your poo poo into Afghanistan and buying front-line combat aircraft from Russia. I don't necessarily agree with that, but my argument regarding buying Russian aircraft wasn't "Canada must buy from a NATO ally" as opposed to "Canada is part of NATO and it will be a cold day in hell before any NATO ally buys new equipment directly from Russia (as opposed to Eastern Bloc countries buying surplus equipment on the open market)." A lot of things have changed in the past 20+ years, but an Alliance that spent over 40 years staring across a line at somebody isn't going to start buying frontline weapons from them anytime soon. I wouldn't sell yourselves short, though...you've (now) got a decent sized airlift fleet and your Navy is still respectable (Upholder/Victoria clusterfuck notwithstanding). I'd put you somewhere between the Dutch and Australia, although that is really just coming down to how you define force projection, and in any case you are far ahead of a Belgium or Austria. LP97S posted:Seriously, I hope history looks back at the time when not one but many countries put almost all of their eggs into one basket for the next generation of planes and says It really is insane...you could make the case that something similar happened (to a much lesser degree) with the NATO adoption of the F-104G (thanks in part to hefty bribes from Lockheed!) and then with the F-16 a couple of decades later, but the key difference is that in both of those cases the aircraft was all or at least mostly developed before the partner nations committed to buying them, and in both cases it was only a couple of NATO countries...wider adoption (in the case of the F-16) came after it had entered service with the U.S. and the NATO folks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 10:20
|
|
|
Flanker posted:I think it's strange that we so quickly rule out Russian aircraft because they're not in NATO but everyone is basically assuming we'll jump on the Gripen even though Sweden isn't in NATO either. Canada had to contract Ukrainian aircraft to move our gear to Afghanistan because at the time our strategic lift was non existent. If you buy fighters mainly to defend your airspace from Russians, isn't it kind of a dumb idea to buy said fighters from Russia - which knows that this is what you're gonna use them for? Even if they actually agrees to sell them in the first place, they will know exactly what your entire air force is capable of - and it's perfectly realistic to expect them not to simply hand over their state-of-the-art tech in the deal either, landing Canada with a situation where they are fighting Russia with the same type aircraft, but inferior versions. Never mind that this will also result in logistic hell since Russian airframes aren't exactly designed to operate using NATO munitions or communication systems. SAAB does at least design everything to NATO standards from the ground up, more or less, so you can seamlessly integrate a Gripen into you air force in a way you probably can't with a Sukhoi. There are reasons that Russian aircraft are operated almost exclusively by former Warzaw pact affiliated countries or proxies, and it's not necessarily either that they are inferior (which they aren't) or that the rest of the world is simply biased.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 12:22
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:If you buy fighters mainly to defend your airspace from Russians, isn't it kind of a dumb idea to buy said fighters from Russia - which knows that this is what you're gonna use them for? Even if they actually agrees to sell them in the first place, they will know exactly what your entire air force is capable of - and it's perfectly realistic to expect them not to simply hand over their state-of-the-art tech in the deal either, landing Canada with a situation where they are fighting Russia with the same type aircraft, but inferior versions. If such a thing were ever to happen you can bet that most of the internal systems of the plane are going to have to be domestically produced in Canada, if only to satisfy domestic political consituents, similar to what the Chinese do, probably more so. It would be more of a joint venture than a straight up pay and fly away today type deal. That would address most of the issues you mention and maybe we'll end up with better Sukhois than the Russians? Canada has a pretty big domestic aerospace industry and isn't most of the F35 also made in Canada? The Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese, Indonesians, etc all use Sukhois and a war between them is much more likely than a Russian invasion of North America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 14:03
|
|
|
Not likely. You don't to give a reemerging geopolitical rival that kind of leverage. We don't like your support of X, no spare parts for you. The Russians probably aren't selling their newest fighter to Canada, noted ally of the United States. It's a bit of a security issue. Also, export market Russian military equipment is usually pretty gimped compared to the real deal.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Just shove this poo poo on a tank somehow Here's a daylight test fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsnhyTiTqk4
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
The rounds are self-detonating and supposedly drop small enough bits of shrapnel to not cause a whole lot of damage. Then again, it's still thousands of the drat things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
Opinion: the emphasis on LO over (and possibly to the detriment of) most other aspects of modern jet designs is born out of the abject fear of high casualty rates in an air campaign (aka "That thing we do where we're supposed to triumphantly roam the sky over East Kerblockistan utterly uncontested and drop bombs anywhere and anytime we want like the very finger of God").
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The rounds are self-detonating and supposedly drop small enough bits of shrapnel to not cause a whole lot of damage. Then again, it's still thousands of the drat things. Holy Christ, that's worse. DU is nasty, nasty stuff when broken into thousands of small pieces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Holy Christ, that's worse. DU is nasty, nasty stuff when broken into thousands of small pieces. grover fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Mar 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
Did someone say Sensor Fuzed Weapons? This is a pretty cool video talking about the sub-munition, it's pretty awesome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKdFCsycYm8
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
priznat posted:Some kind of tesla coil setup.. gently caress another thing C&C was right about!! Actually this is being looked into. The idea is that you charge the exterior layer of your armor to some gigantic gently caress-off voltage, and then some inner layer of it is grounded, turning your armor plate into a enormous capacitor. Then when you get hit by a HEAT round, the penetrator completes the circuit, and the cap discharges through it, exploding it before it makes its way inside. Throatwarbler posted:I read in one of those Yep. SADARM, fires from a 155mm gun, deploys 2 parachute-retarded submunitions that precess as they descend. Uses radar and IR to look for targets, fires an EFP when it finds one. Forums Terrorist posted:DU is nasty, nasty stuff when broken into thousands of small pieces. Enh. So's lead. The radiological hazards of DU are insignificant compared to the fact that it's a toxic heavy metal. The specific activiy's only 22 KBq/g, by comparison the average 70kg adult has an activity of ~8.2 KBq. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Mar 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 15:58
|
|
RED ARMY 1980 books about some kind of artillery shell that would reach a certain height, deploy a parachute, and then turn into some kind of one shot mini recoiless rifle and would fire a penetrator downwards into an enemy tank. How it would aim itself or ID targets was unclear.
|
Also it's pyrophoric but yeah, DU's toxic and mutagenic as hell. Ask any mother in Fallujah!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:If you buy fighters mainly to defend your airspace from Russians, isn't it kind of a dumb idea to buy said fighters from Russia - which knows that this is what you're gonna use them for? In my highly specified masturbatory fantasy these super flankers or PAK-FAs would be licensed built in Canada with NATO spec weapons, avionics comms etc. Essentially we'd just pay for rights to the airframes and fill it with Canadian guts. Also they will be piloted by a wet and naked Daniel Craig. For Canadian content, I might allow Ryan Reynolds, but he is not allowed to talk, or look directly at me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
grover posted:Fuel tanks didn't contribute to Hood's sinking. Lack of armor is what contributed to her sinking. Not even the thickest armor on the ship could withstand a direct hit from one of Bismarck's 15" guns. This isn't correct at all. Armor protection was never except in its earliest days (Warrior, Monitor and so on) meant to make a ship impervious to shellfire. It was meant to mitigate damage to vital components or parts of the ship against what could be reasonably expected to happen in an engagement. Armor was generally expected to be pierced at some point in a battle, but the point was to reduce the damage caused by those hits. Hood was exceptionally unlucky in the Denmark Straits. Seriously, this is stuff I've heard directly from original sources or from members of the team who examined Hood's wreck a few years ago. A shell, probably from the Bismarck, ignited her secondary armament magazines, which set off such an intense fire/explosion that the oil in the fuel tanks on one side ignited and the flames and flash spread to the forward magazines and blew the ship apart. So yes, the fuel tanks did contribute to her sinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Seriously, this is stuff I've heard directly from original sources or from members of the team who examined Hood's wreck a few years ago. A shell, probably from the Bismarck, ignited her secondary armament magazines, which set off such an intense fire/explosion that the oil in the fuel tanks on one side ignited and the flames and flash spread to the forward magazines and blew the ship apart. So yes, the fuel tanks did contribute to her sinking. An apt metaphor for Singletary's coaching job with the 49ers, wouldn't you say? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:CBU-97 This thing is so sci-fi, hard to believe that it's an actual weapon in the field and not some star trek pipe dream project in development hell. How do those little hovering killbots turn that copper into molten slugs like that? Does it operate on the same principles as an EFP? If so how does it fire so many of them without blowing itself apart? E: Nevermind, I guess Mr. Despairs video kinda answered this question. I was under the impression that each of those "smart skeet warheads" could fire an EFP at more than one target. FEMA summer camp fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Mar 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Far more on the AIRPOWER than the Cold War side of the thread but a decent amount of reference has been made to Australian force projection in the last few pages. Do non-Australians give much thought to Australian force-projection and regional power type situations or is it just another "add a name to Operation Oil-field-freedom" type deal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:It is my firm belief that in part because of all this the M1 Abrams is the finest weapons system the US has ever deployed, and I'm saying that as a huge goddamned Russophile. I think I agree. Even if the RnD programs sometimes get a little out of control (I remember this being a problem with the Challenger 2) the end products seem to work extremely well and unlike lots of other recent programs, western tanks have a handle on procurement price. As to future M1 replacements, I know with the Challenger 2 there's no plan to replace them in the foreseeable future, simply because there's nothing on the horizon that could best it in tank combat. I think the M1 is the same way; upgrades to new threats, not a new design, is the plan. That said, I have no idea if the line for producing M1s still exists. It's possible that the US could just use up its entire force of tanks over decades of low intensity conflict. Flanker posted:In my highly specified masturbatory fantasy these super flankers or PAK-FAs would be licensed built in Canada with NATO spec weapons, avionics comms etc. Essentially we'd just pay for rights to the airframes and fill it with Canadian guts. I was picturing something like this too (er, minus wet Daniel Craig) even though I know it's not very realistic. I didn't know the Eurofighrer had problems...are we talking normal sort or F-35 sort of problems? (That's another thing I utterly don't get about the F-35 - in Europe most of the buyers already have new planes in the form of the eurofighter.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:That said, I have no idea if the line for producing M1s still exists. It's possible that the US could just use up its entire force of tanks over decades of low intensity conflict. The lines are closed, but there is money put aside to reopen them sometime around 2015 for maintenance and upgrades IIRC. Same with the Challenger II. Nebakenezzer posted:(That's another thing I utterly don't get about the F-35 - in Europe most of the buyers already have new planes in the form of the eurofighter.) This essentially goes back to the formation of NATO - one of the conditions of membership (and of receiving Marshall Plan aid, incidentally) was that the participating country purchase US arms. As the Cold War went on and Europe rebuilt itself there was a struggle between the US, which was perfectly happy being the arsenal of Eventually, with the Cold War ending, this question became somewhat irrelevant but there are some muppets who think that it's still 1950 and that American industry is still on top of the world. It also doesn't help, of course, that a major difference between European and American equipment procurement is that in America, if, say, a fighter has issues with its radar being delayed, the whole program gets delayed, whereas in Europe we'll just put it into service sans radar, and put it in later. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I was picturing something like this too (er, minus wet Daniel Craig) even though I know it's not very realistic. I didn't know the Eurofighrer had problems...are we talking normal sort or F-35 sort of problems? I also love that spreading work equally through all the european partners ended up with really stupid poo poo like one wing being built in one factory in one nation, and the nother wing built by a completely different company in a completely different factory in a completely different company. And it goes on and on. And they wonder why there are issues with commonality and spare parts. grover fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Mar 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
They should have just let the Italians do the styling and the Germans do everything else. The Brits just provide the lady who does the "Bitchin' Betty" voice because British accent. (accidentally ends up with some cockney accented trollop "ERE NOW GOVNAH YOU'D BEST BE PULLIN UP BEFORE YOU SHAG THE CARPET ME LOVELY")
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
grover posted:I also love that spreading work equally through all the european partners ended up with really stupid poo poo like one wing being built in one factory in one nation, and the nother wing built by a completely different company in a completely different factory in a completely different company. And it goes on and on. And they wonder why there are issues with commonality and spare parts. The Eurofighter has issues, but that's essentially the same approach used by every pan-European project ever. For gently caress's sake, the US does the same thing, but with states. The real problem with the Eurofighter is that it's a pure air superiority fighter in an age of multi-role aircraft; it meets the design goals, but the problem is the design goals were poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Flanker posted:For Canadian content, I might allow Ryan Reynolds, but he is not allowed to talk, or look directly at me. The hell do you have against Ryan Gosling?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:The Eurofighter has issues, but that's essentially the same approach used by every pan-European project ever. For gently caress's sake, the US does the same thing, but with states. The real problem with the Eurofighter is that it's a pure air superiority fighter in an age of multi-role aircraft; it meets the design goals, but the problem is the design goals were poo poo. I don't see why would they need such a thing when the F35 is going to fulfill all their ground attack needs, replace the Tornado, Harrier, and furthermore 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Canada could pay more than $100 million for each of the first few F-35 fighter jets it’s scheduled to receive in 2017.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
priznat posted:Canada could pay more than $100 million for each of the first few F-35 fighter jets it’s scheduled to receive in 2017. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
priznat posted:They should have just let the Italians do the styling and the Germans do everything else. To repurpose an old joke about waiters, bartenders, lovers, pop singers, and cops: In heaven, the aerodynamics are Italian, the hydraulics are German, the avionics are Swedish, the engines are French, and the pilot is British. In hell, the aerodynamics are German, the hydraulics are British, the avionics are Italian, the engines are Swedish, and the pilot is French. Or something like that, I'm sure that exceptions abound and there are ugly Italian planes and great French pilots but e.g. British companies have earned a reputation for making oil leak from systems that didn't even contain any.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
grover posted:Hey, at least it's 1/3 of what UK is paying for the Typhoon, so it's a relative bargain... On the other hand the Germans aren't complaining about the Typhoon not doing what it wasn't built to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:The Eurofighter has issues, but that's essentially the same approach used by every pan-European project ever. For gently caress's sake, the US does the same thing, but with states. The real problem with the Eurofighter is that it's a pure air superiority fighter in an age of multi-role aircraft; it meets the design goals, but the problem is the design goals were poo poo. No one beats us in hand-outs 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
grover posted:Hey, at least it's 1/3 of what UK is paying for the Typhoon, so it's a relative bargain... And for those prices you could be getting 2 or more Su35's
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:And for those prices you could be getting 2 or more Su35's
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
goon project convert old Mig-21s into manned SAMs
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
grover posted:Or 40 Mig-21s! 40 MiG-21's could take down an F35 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
grover posted:Or 40 Mig-21s! If the F-35 is sitting broken on the runway when the attack comes a single MiG 21 will be sufficient
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
Imma reply to a post from somewhere on the last couple of pages because this thread suddenly moved fast as hell BUT: Greece operates BMP-1Vs, some Tor-M1s and a shitload of Shilkas. As well as the assorted ATGMs and lotsa RPG-18s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
Enough about a plane with an optional gun, let's talk about a plane with 6 guns. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 05:07
|
|