|
D-Pad posted:The killdozer guy is the only true sovereign citizen because of this imagine if he waited a few more years so the event could be livestreamed
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:you can't be a real country unless you have a domestic tank design and an airline. it helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need indigenously developed armored vehicles having a domestic arms industry will take you pretty far if it doesn't get hollowed out in service of a great power
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:59
|
|
|
zetamind2000 posted:imagine if he waited a few more years so the event could be livestreamed I feel likenif it was livestreamed we'd end up having a much less favorable view of the guy
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:12
|
|
|
almost certainly true. On reflection perhaps rampages shouldn't be streamed, in general
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:33
|
|
|
lol I bet North Korea would beat our asses in a rematch
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Canada has placed its domestic jet fighter training on hold, as it retires its trainer aircraft. In the meantime, solutions are to send pilots to the US, Italy, or maybe Finland to train. No training artillery, no training aircraft, no training, no worries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:52
|
|
|
Soapy_Bumslap posted:lol I bet North Korea would beat our asses in a rematch Never forget that the claims of "human waves" are literally just copy and pasted Nazi propaganda, and actually the US significantly outnumbered the North Korean and Chinese forces and still got clowned on by the end. But yes, certainly, I think there is no doubt that North Korea would do well in a war. It's something that they have been expecting any day for literally decades. They make things. And those things also include nukes and ICBMs that have been demonstrated to be able to reach the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:05
|
|
|
It's worse, actually, because the Hawk had taken over a good amount of the CAS/Attack role as Hornet numbers diminished. It was being used sort of like the CF-116 Freedom Fighters were. Those squadrons were counted as attack squadrons in army planning, even if the RCAF considered them primarily trainers.
DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 22:08 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:06
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Those squadrons were counted as attack squadrons in army planning, even if the RCAF considered them primarily trainers. That seems quite dumb on the army's part then... I never, ever heard a Canadian mention that the Hawk would be used in combat. So I suspect either the army planners you're referencing were being real weird on purpose in hypotheticals or were exceptionally out of touch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:10
|
|
|
On the DPRK making things front, worth noting that they export arms, more than just artillery shells, and have been for a long time. This is a Korean Bulsae, a derivative of the Konkurs but laser instead of wire guided.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:10
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:On the DPRK making things front, worth noting that they export arms, more than just artillery shells, and have been for a long time. But I was assured by all that propaganda over the past 2 decades that the DPRK was just a giant potemkin village of starving mud farmers and slave actors pretending to walk around carefully maintained tourist only venues. Their military nothing but the vestigial remnants of 1950s soviet systems carefully maintained by rote due to every nut and bolt being utterly irreplacable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:13
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:You're literally a tankie. Anyone who supports Ukraine is a fascist Israeli and will be dealt with in the style of a Timurid extermination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:36
|
|
|
Let's talk about the oldest poem that was stricken from the record for hurting western feelings Capture of Miletus by Cyrus and Harpagus Phrynichus wrote this poem which predates The Persians and was written by Aeschylus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrynichus_(tragic_poet) https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Capture-of-Miletus Apparently, after capturing the greatest Hellenistic city in Anatolia, Miletus, all men were executed, and children/women were handed over to new families. The poem was rejected from society for reminding them of this and he was fined for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:40
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:you can't be a real country unless you have a domestic tank design and an airline. it helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need indigenously developed armored vehicles Nato being an arm of US imperialism as it gets countries to stop being countries makes a lot of sense in this regard
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:44
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Canada has placed its domestic jet fighter training on hold, as it retires its trainer aircraft. In the meantime, solutions are to send pilots to the US, Italy, or maybe Finland to train. I understand the branding intention, but nothing says “not scary or cool” more than anything with the Canada serif font logo except for Canadarm
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:44
|
|
|
Yemen’s Houthis reported to have a hypersonic missile https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthi-hypersonic-missile-red-sea-e2bc170ff4470712f314fbb80bf24716
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:57
|
|
|
HouseofSuren posted:Yemen’s Houthis reported to have a hypersonic missile These guys are gonna nail a carrier I can feel it
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:02
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That seems quite dumb on the army's part then... In their sales pitch, which is partially covered in this article about 419 Squadron, as well as CFC papers EURO-NATO JOINT JET PILOT TRAINING: A VIABLE FUTURE-FLIT CANDIDATE and CONTRACTED PILOT TRAINING FOR THE RCAF: GETTING IT RIGHT THE SECOND TIME, but probably more importantly, the senate report REINVESTING IN THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES: A PLAN FOR THE FUTURE and Auditor General's Report NATO Flying Training In Canada, a significant reason BAE was contracted for the Hawk in the first place was their promise that "The stores management system (SMS) enables the aircraft to deploy the full range of weapons from BDU-33 practice weapons to mk82 laser-guided munitions. The pilot selects the weapons by using the multifunction displays. The SMS has sufficient capacity to ensure that the aircraft will be capable of deploying future weaponry. The aircraft has seven wing-mounted weapon stations, including missile launchers for short-range air-to-air missiles. The aircraft is also capable of being armed with the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missile." Which was pointed to as a cost saving measure for Canada, gaining advanced trainer and attack capabilities. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 23:44 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:33
|
|
|
Probably one of those fitted for but not with things. We could equip it with all these things. In theory. If any of those things were actually purchased. But they weren't to save money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:Probably one of those fitted for but not with things. That is so on brand it pretty much guarantees it. Also those reports are so frustrating because they privatized several parts of pilot training only to discover... get this! It cost more, took longer, and the results weren't as consistent! How many times are they going to fall for the same trick?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:45
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:In their sales pitch, which is partially covered in this article about 419 Squadron, as well as CFC papers EURO-NATO JOINT JET PILOT TRAINING: The documents in your post indicate that the HAWK was purchased purely as a trainer and is labeled as such. Trainers often can fire some of the weapons combat aircraft can, because that’s part of training. If Canadian Army officers mistook that for a combat attack squadron in disguise as trainers, holy poo poo, that’s very stupid. I couldn’t find the quote about weapons in the Canadian government documents, but it appears on a dot com website. Is that where you pulled that from, instead of the official documents you linked? I mean this quote in particular: FF posted:a significant reason BAE was contracted for the Hawk in the first place was their promise that That does not appear in the pdfs you linked that I can find, but it is in an airforce technology dot com article. If I didn’t search the gov docs well enough, sorry, but your pull quote is word for word from a separate website that is not included in the audit documents. from that same dot com site: “Major changes have been made to make it more representative of a front line aircraft, for example the Boeing F/A-18.” So yeah, it is described as representative of the F/A-18 for training purposes, not as a Canadian attack squadron.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:I but probably more importantly, the senate report REINVESTING IN THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES: A PLAN FOR THE FUTURE This is what is in the document you linked here.  FF posted:and Auditor General's Report NATO Flying Training In Canada, a significant reason BAE was contracted for the Hawk in the first place was their promise that The second link just talks about cost of pilot training and funding, and did not include anything from the quotes you pulled form a third party website. If you read the document linked above and thought that document promised a ground attack squadron, I don't know what to tell you. The HAWK isn't even mentioned by name. Neither are weapon stores nor weapon types.  If the above quotes made the army think that the HAWK trainers were an attack squadron in waiting, that's their fault for bad reading comprehension or just making poo poo up. I thought you might have meant that the army was saying that in an insane mad max sitution you COULD maybe use them as attackers. But if they read the documents that you linked in your post and concluded that Canada planned to use them as attackers, that's just deficient reading and comprehension on the part of the army. FF, your quote about HAWK capability doesn't come from the government docs you linked in your post at all. It's lifted from here: https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawk/ I don't see any connection between the government training docs you linked and this website you quoted without attribution to their source. mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 00:19 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 00:14
|
|
|
I'm not doing your homework for you. Hawks were considered able to carry weapons and listed as advanced trainer / attack out of 15 Wing. Or at least discussed in that context. The degree to which that was implemented, I have no idea, because I'm not in the RCAF, but that is my recollection. Maybe utilizing the budget aircraft was supposed to be a cost effective way to retain capability while the Hornet replacement was worked out. Maybe "capable of" was BAE offering access to affordable CAS. Je ne sais pas. You can see that this capability is discussed as a requirement in the doctrine level discussed in the journal here, CANADA’S FUTURE FIGHTER: A TRAINING CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS "Enhanced Fighter Lead-In Training (FLIT) Phase. A large portion of the tactical training currently taught at an OTU could be devolved to the less expensive Enhanced FLIT Phase, while some aspects would remain in the Conversion Phase. The Enhanced FLIT Phase, envisioned to be conducted at 4 Wing, would require a new aircraft to replace the CT-155 Hawk advanced tactical jet, as part of the follow-on training contract that will eventually succeed the NFTC program. This aircraft would ideally have an integrated but unclassified cockpit in the style of the future fighter, complete with a simulated avionics capability. The Hawk replacement would closely replicate the ergonomics of the future fighter (although not its performance) and would include simulated radar, data-link, weapons system, an electronic warfare suite, and more. The new training aircraft would need to be a two-seat variant, permitting an instructor to act as a backseat safety pilot during the critical initial combat training missions. To ensure consistency of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), pilots flying the FLIT aircraft may well use the same tactical manuals that they would use on the future fighter." Wheeler, Dave. "Canada’s Future Fighter: A Training Concept of Operations." *Canadian Military Journal*, Date Modified: 2008-07-14. Accessed March 15, 2024. Prescriptions for Defence "The cornerstone of the Smart Defence prescription, and certainly the largest generator of its projected financial savings, is its plan to cancel the planned acquisition of the F-35—on cost and performance grounds and because it is single-engined—and “extend the CF-18 fleet with 30-40 new F/A-18 Super Hornets.” The latter “could then be used for day-to-day operations, including training, while the CF-18s are rested in climate-controlled hangars for situations requiring a greater number of [fighter aircraft].” The resulting savings would then be applied to the purchase of 40 to 50 BAE Systems Hawks (or a “similar” aircraft). The latter would be used to replace the leased Hawks currently utilized as fighter-trainers and the Tutors utilized by the Snowbirds. The new aircraft would also be “available for close air support, should they be needed when Canadian soldiers are deployed on peacekeeping or other missions overseas.” This approach, argues Byers, would “ensure that new [aircraft] arrive before the CF-18s have to be retired, while providing a 10-15 year ‘bridge’ during which time it should be possible to ascertain whether a completely new fleet of fighter jets is needed, or whether geopolitical or technological developments (e.g., dogfight-capable drones) have rendered such planes an unnecessary component of Canada’s military.” This is, to be sure, an unorthodox proposal, albeit one with some intriguing operational and other attributes—not least, in some quarters, its ability to buy time on a contentious procurement issue. But, as various commentators have noted, it is difficult to see how a small fleet of only 30 to 40 Super Hornets could adequately address Canada’s national (i.e., air sovereignty), NORAD, NATO and other commitments. Supplementary CF-18s and Hawks may appear attractive on paper, but would introduce their own complications, including the lifespan and upgrade status of any retained CF-18s, their availability rate, the very modest level of commonality between the Hornet and the Super Hornet, and the number of Hawks that could readily be diverted from domestic training and air demonstration tasks to such functions as close air support (assuming, of course, that they would be adequate in some CAS scenarios). If one is prepared to forego the stealth and sensor attributes—admittedly, expensive attributes—of a fifth generation fighter and remains troubled by the F-35’s single engine, a mixed fleet option more palatable than that advanced by Smart Defence might be a force of more than 30 to 40 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers. Some form of successor to the leased Hawk fighter-trainers (and, ideally, the air demonstration Tutors) would, of course, still be required. The degree to which that type might hold a secondary CAS or other commitment would be worthy of study." Shadwick, Martin. "Prescriptions for Defence." Canadian Military Journal, Date Modified: 2014-06-04. Accessed March 15, 2024. Smart Defence: A Plan for Rebuilding Canada’s Military "Recommendation 3: Acquire a fleet of 40–50 BAE Hawks (or a similar plane) for training, aeronautics and close air support Reducing the budget for new fighters would allow Canada to acquire a fleet of subsonic jets or high-speed turboprops for training, aeronautics and a capability that the country currently lacks but sometimes needs: close air support. A fleet of 40–50 BAE Hawks (or a similar plane) could replace the leased Hawks that are already used for training fighter pilots, as well as the aging CT-114 Tutors used by the Snowbirds Demonstration Team. The new planes would also be available for close air support, should they be needed when Canadian soldiers are deployed on peacekeeping or other missions overseas. Subsonic planes like Hawks (which come in a ground-attack version) would better protect troops than supersonic fighter jets because of their ability to fly low and slow. They also avoid the risk of ‘mission creep’ associated with armed unmanned drones." Byers, Michael. "Smart Defence: A Plan for Rebuilding Canada’s Military." Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, June 2015. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 00:49 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 00:40
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:I'm not doing your homework for you. Hawks were considered able to carry weapons and listed as advanced trainer / attack out of 15 Wing. You are proving my point that the army planners were just being poo poo at reading if they actually thought the trainers were also an attack squadron. You are linking and quoting documents that say the HAWK was intended purely as a trainer. The “I am not doing your homework for you” is a total dodge of the fact that you linked Canadian government docs that say the HAWK was purely a trainer, many run by private contractor, and then grabbed your unsourced pull quote from Air Force Technology Dot Com to say that actually they are an attack squadron. The army guys super hosed up in reading if they thought the way you do. The Canadian government was pretty drat clear. You are now providing citations that were never in your post, after the fact. Yoyr newly found links are not government policy but instead journal argumentative essays. In the journal you found just now, you are selectively bolding a sentence in a paragraph that is explaining that using HAWKs as attack squadrons is unusual and would predicated on buying Super Hornets, which is a thing that never happened! And the idea of buying Super Hornets was explicitly abandoned years ago. Do you see how your selective bolding here is misleading? Do you comprehend the overall point the author is making? quote:This is, to be sure, an unorthodox proposal, albeit one with some intriguing operational and other attributes—not least, in some quarters, its ability to buy time on a contentious procurement issue. But, as various commentators have noted, it is difficult to see how a small fleet of only 30 to 40 Super Hornets could adequately address Canada’s national (i.e., air sovereignty), NORAD, NATO and other commitments. Supplementary CF-18s and Hawks may appear attractive on paper, but would introduce their own complications, including the lifespan and upgrade status of any retained CF-18s, their availability rate, the very modest level of commonality between the Hornet and the Super Hornet, and the number of Hawks that could readily be diverted from domestic training and air demonstration tasks to such functions as close air support (assuming, of course, that they would be adequate in some CAS scenarios).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 00:58
|
|
|
*shouting from across the parking lot* neeeeeerds
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 01:03
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:That is so on brand it pretty much guarantees it. It's not a trick when you get to wet your beak after retirement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 01:21
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You are proving my point that the army planners were just being poo poo at reading Apparently so. At the risk of restating myself, in the only conversation I participated in where the possibility and potential of the CT-155 came up, those squadrons were counted as - I'll insert potential/emergency here - attack squadrons in - the context of conversations and classroom work, not a formal doctrine decision published through CADTC - army planning, - the only kind I've participated in or been privy to - even if the RCAF considered them primarily trainers. Apparently this discussion was as fanciful as the Corps 86 exercise that developed the 120mm turretless tank destroyer. I feel like I've been enriched both by that very fascinating what-if and your thorough correction. It seems like somebody shared your contention, or asked the RCAF, since nobody else seems to have explored it very far. Retraction Notice. "The US will lose WW3." C-SPAM, Published. Retracted Friday, March 15, 2024. Reason for retraction: Speculation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 01:23
|
|
|
i would unhesitatingly throw an entire card of hellfire equiped canadian hawks into the teeth of the russian air defense because it would embarrass putinloverzov69 to lose an elite t-80u to a 50pt unit
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 02:15
|
|
|
There came a point where I just stopped using aircraft at all minus one card of a good ATGM plane that I could throw away to delete an elite tank.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 02:33
|
|
|
paging crepeface https://twitter.com/realsteelmuslim/status/1768811275356909905
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 02:35
|
|
|
It would be really weird if Hawks weren't considered a backup light attack squadron, as this would make Canada an outlier. Most countries consider trainers in this way! The Alpha Jet and Hawk especially.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 02:44
|
|
|
A great on thread topic video by Perun on the topic of the LCS and Zumwalt procurement disasters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odS3Kn5oGl0 Nothing that we haven't talked about here already but the presentation is great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:07
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:paging crepeface Not even trying, Australia buying subs that they can't maintain is "securing decades of peace and prosperitry for America and her allies". If the Cannuck gov is poo poo at military procurement then they've got a ways to go to meet our morons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:paging crepeface It was probably written by the US and Australia just recited it verbatim. USA: It's great for the USA! Australia, looking sideways carefully: Yeah, it's great for the USA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:15
|
|
|
Aus putting giant down payment for something they won't receive for decades is good for regional peace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:18
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Aus putting giant down payment for something they won't receive Correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:25
|
|
|
Ship building ports, especially where the carriers are maintained are filled with petty criminals in the US. Drug gangs. The carrier building elements of defense always lose money as well. https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2023-05-22/navy-ronald-reagan-drug-investigation-10194912.html https://www.newsweek.com/us-navy-sailors-guilty-drug-ring-1287520 HouseofSuren has issued a correction as of 04:31 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:27
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:It's worse, actually, because the Hawk had taken over a good amount of the CAS/Attack role as Hornet numbers diminished. It was being used sort of like the CF-116 Freedom Fighters were. Those squadrons were counted as attack squadrons in army planning, even if the RCAF considered them primarily trainers. We took long walk to get from the claim above stated as fact to here, to a wholly different claim: DJJIB-DJDCT posted:At the risk of restating myself, in the only conversation I participated in where the possibility and potential of the CT-155 came up, those squadrons were counted as - I'll insert potential/emergency here - attack squadrons in - the context of conversations and classroom work, not a formal doctrine decision published through CADTC - army planning, - the only kind I've participated in or been privy to - even if the RCAF considered them primarily trainers. We’ve all heard a planner or student come up with some wild and misinformed idea. We usually don’t state those as facts of current ops the way you did before walking it back. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 08:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/un_a_valeable/status/1768734724279640288?t=M4CbcoY_OulDYt1c0j6WlQ&s=19 now THIS is tank destroyer doctrine!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
What in tarnation
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 09:49
|
|