Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Tug of War

CaptainCrunch · 09-25-2004, 04:24 PM

Captain Crunch,

i'm tasting your barbeque and i like it, but i'll take you on for a couple of your points:

Thanks I like to boil my ribs before I cook them

5) the CF-18s are indeed past their service life. why we chose a naval strike fighter, whilst without a) carriers and harpoon missiles, i'll never know.

We chose the F-18 due to the fact that it was the best multirole fighter available at the right price the fact that it could carry a heavy ordinance load, and it had very good all weather capability made it a very good choice

we should have purchased the F-20 tigershark. modern, fly-by-wire, uses the old f-5 airframe, many cheap parts still produced for the thousands in service. grumman didn't have the right senators in their pocket when this plane was first debuted, but i bet canada could have swooped in and gotten a bargain.

The F-20 would have been a good choice, however it had a lower pounds of thrust ratio and was a sigle engine fighter which would eliminate it from use in Canada. What I do like about the TigerShark is that it can carry a heavier bomb load. However the F-18 has a more advanced sensor and delivery system.

hell, we could revive a few hundred f-5s the same way isreali aircraft industries is reviving F4's for turkey, or MiG-21s for domestic use. keep the f-5s as the training mules, a cheap way to keep a thousand or so pilots sharp in case a real war breaks out.

The F-5 could only carry a quarter on the arms that the F-18 could carry. We had them up here and they performed poorly in cold weather.

all this time keep maybe one squadron of f-20s up at the ultra-elite status, for deployment on a moment's notice.

the f-20 was one-half the price of an f-18, and its maintenance is one-quarter the cost. plus it does everything we've asked of the f-18, which mostly consists of carrying two missiles and unguided bombs. not that it couldn't carry guided if it had to, of course, an upgrade required for our participation in blowing up all those wooden MiG-29s and T-72s in Yugoslavia.

as to the MiG-31 - i agree, we shoould look at options for the old soviet stuff still around. the airframes are great designs, and we could get them upgraded to more modern avionics packages a la IAI as mentioned above. they aren't cheap but they do great work!

we could buy up old stock from former warsaw nations/allies like germany, hungary, rumania, etc. and get them going for us.

the MiG-31 is a newer MiG-25, the first plane to knock the Arrow off as the most capable interceptor in terms of speed, height, etc. - ten years after the Arrow (ha!).

it would be a good plane for canada, it is fast and rugged.

7) SUVs??????

Someone earlier in the thread was talking about using SUV's and dirtbikes, I was taking a shot at that

i know that DARPA's 'manfinder' radar may be a good counter to guerilla operations, as well as helicopter-based IR detection, but if we face a threat to canada at all we could not mount a serious defence to meet them at the point of insertion, i think we should concentrate on harrassment until the british can come save our bacon.

Thats why we need advanced sentries with the ability to do top down scanning at targets on the ground

8) i don't know much aboot the stryker but i do know this:

the age of the tank has left us. even the fastest tanks are very vulnerable to death from above. one hit from many weapons will blow a 100-ton tank to smithereens, so why not use something more mobile, that just might be able to hull down in time or jump into a ditch to save it from a hellfire inbound?

I agree and disagree. The tanks biggest issues are attacks from the top. However a wheeled vehicle like a AFV or Stryker can be taken out with a RPG round to the tires. A treaded vehicle can continue its mobility using its road wheels. You also can't argue that a tank has a greater abiliity to provide a heavier and greater rate of fire over double the distance that a bradly could. Also new reactive armour on the M1A1 and T-90's can almost guarantee survibability from a missile strike.

and i'll add a suggestion: adopt the south-african G6 mobile artillery, an absolute gem of a machine. can shoot at 2000 square miles of territory, sounds like it was designed for canada. also its predecessor was helped quite a bit by mr. gerald bull, a canadian...

Currently we use the Howitzer 1094a4+ self propelled artillary with a range of 18kms using 155mm rounds and a rate of fire of 4 rounds a minute.

The G6 has a range of 50KM's and can deliver 5 to 8 rounds per minutes. so from a firepower point of view, but its mobility in hampered by the fact that its wheeled so the 1094A4 can get into more rugged environments.

For your enjoyment a great site on military aircraft

Hey MAverick check your six

09-25-2004, 04:24 PM	#7
CaptainCrunch Norm! Join Date: Jun 2002 Exp:	Captain Crunch, i'm tasting your barbeque and i like it, but i'll take you on for a couple of your points: Thanks I like to boil my ribs before I cook them 5) the CF-18s are indeed past their service life. why we chose a naval strike fighter, whilst without a) carriers and harpoon missiles, i'll never know. We chose the F-18 due to the fact that it was the best multirole fighter available at the right price the fact that it could carry a heavy ordinance load, and it had very good all weather capability made it a very good choice we should have purchased the F-20 tigershark. modern, fly-by-wire, uses the old f-5 airframe, many cheap parts still produced for the thousands in service. grumman didn't have the right senators in their pocket when this plane was first debuted, but i bet canada could have swooped in and gotten a bargain. The F-20 would have been a good choice, however it had a lower pounds of thrust ratio and was a sigle engine fighter which would eliminate it from use in Canada. What I do like about the TigerShark is that it can carry a heavier bomb load. However the F-18 has a more advanced sensor and delivery system. hell, we could revive a few hundred f-5s the same way isreali aircraft industries is reviving F4's for turkey, or MiG-21s for domestic use. keep the f-5s as the training mules, a cheap way to keep a thousand or so pilots sharp in case a real war breaks out. The F-5 could only carry a quarter on the arms that the F-18 could carry. We had them up here and they performed poorly in cold weather. all this time keep maybe one squadron of f-20s up at the ultra-elite status, for deployment on a moment's notice. the f-20 was one-half the price of an f-18, and its maintenance is one-quarter the cost. plus it does everything we've asked of the f-18, which mostly consists of carrying two missiles and unguided bombs. not that it couldn't carry guided if it had to, of course, an upgrade required for our participation in blowing up all those wooden MiG-29s and T-72s in Yugoslavia. as to the MiG-31 - i agree, we shoould look at options for the old soviet stuff still around. the airframes are great designs, and we could get them upgraded to more modern avionics packages a la IAI as mentioned above. they aren't cheap but they do great work! we could buy up old stock from former warsaw nations/allies like germany, hungary, rumania, etc. and get them going for us. the MiG-31 is a newer MiG-25, the first plane to knock the Arrow off as the most capable interceptor in terms of speed, height, etc. - ten years after the Arrow (ha!). it would be a good plane for canada, it is fast and rugged. 7) SUVs?????? Someone earlier in the thread was talking about using SUV's and dirtbikes, I was taking a shot at that i know that DARPA's 'manfinder' radar may be a good counter to guerilla operations, as well as helicopter-based IR detection, but if we face a threat to canada at all we could not mount a serious defence to meet them at the point of insertion, i think we should concentrate on harrassment until the british can come save our bacon. Thats why we need advanced sentries with the ability to do top down scanning at targets on the ground 8) i don't know much aboot the stryker but i do know this: the age of the tank has left us. even the fastest tanks are very vulnerable to death from above. one hit from many weapons will blow a 100-ton tank to smithereens, so why not use something more mobile, that just might be able to hull down in time or jump into a ditch to save it from a hellfire inbound? I agree and disagree. The tanks biggest issues are attacks from the top. However a wheeled vehicle like a AFV or Stryker can be taken out with a RPG round to the tires. A treaded vehicle can continue its mobility using its road wheels. You also can't argue that a tank has a greater abiliity to provide a heavier and greater rate of fire over double the distance that a bradly could. Also new reactive armour on the M1A1 and T-90's can almost guarantee survibability from a missile strike. and i'll add a suggestion: adopt the south-african G6 mobile artillery, an absolute gem of a machine. can shoot at 2000 square miles of territory, sounds like it was designed for canada. also its predecessor was helped quite a bit by mr. gerald bull, a canadian... Currently we use the Howitzer 1094a4+ self propelled artillary with a range of 18kms using 155mm rounds and a rate of fire of 4 rounds a minute. The G6 has a range of 50KM's and can deliver 5 to 8 rounds per minutes. so from a firepower point of view, but its mobility in hampered by the fact that its wheeled so the 1094A4 can get into more rugged environments. For your enjoyment a great site on military aircraft Hey MAverick check your six __________________ My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!