Tug of War - struggling to save Canada's military

[Cowperson]

The National Post goes in depth on the crisis facing the Canadian military.

The problem with Canada's military, as one directive put it recently, is that the military is too small to carry out its tasks, yet too big for its shrinking budget. Today, we commit comparatively less money to our military than any other country in NATO except Luxembourg. Despite all of this, health care and social services, not national security, dominate the debate.

http://www.canada.com/national/featu...war/index.html

Cowperson

[Looger]

Today, we commit comparatively less money to our military than any other country in NATO except Luxembourg.

are we behind iceland? because that may just be impossible.

It has been six decades since the Second World War, when the Canadian Forces reached their pinnacle of power and respect, and one decade since the Somalia scandal, when the Forces hit their dark nadir. After so much turbulence, what is the real state of the military today?

the somalia scandal. ah yes.

we come to the heart of the real problem with canada's military, right here.

a beauracracy somehow decides to send a frontline combat unit into somalia. these guys are killers. so, they kill people. or more technically they violate procedure by torturing THEN killing someone who broke into the base, instead of simply killing him on the spot.

so the unit is torn down, reformed without some of the more notorious bad people, and all is supposedly well.

shouldn't we be wondering why this situation came aboot in the first place? who's making these asinine decisions anyway? who keeps booking appointments for our boys with one hand and taking away office space with the other?

and quite honestly anyone that thinks somalia was a big deal should check in with all the soliers sent back from the former yugoslavia, who were politley rebuked for having too many notches in their rifles by getting a ticket punched for home.

unreal and outrageous, i just don't see how without a proper joint chiefs of staff type situation canada's military will be viable for much longer.

were i making decisions i would concentrate a large amount of money on building a guerilla warfare force, using ATVs and dirtbikes, mortars, and a large network of sensors and communications across this great land. after this was in place THEN i would dela with the outside world.

if our peacekeepers keep getting new assignments then we should face reality and buy them some new toys, some new boats, new everything. like a $20 billion budget, the same price that quebec is.

[CaptainCrunch]

Dear Canada;

Since our defense forces are so poorly run and in such a rambshackled condition that a invasion by Rwanda would probably succeed, I thought I would write this letter to tell you what I would do if I was put in charge of our military.

1) Forcibly retire half of our officers with a rank of Colonel and above. Reduce our general officers by 3/4's. Hell we don't even have 100,000 men in uniform, what do we need 50 generals for. We need maybe 15. One army, one navy, and one aiforce to form a general staff, and 4 for each service.

2) Fire over half of the civilians involved in running the armed forces and replace them with the remaining administrative officers. We don't need a bearocracy(sp?) to run a small military.

3) Remove ourselves from UN peacekeeping missions unless they are commanded by Canadians.
a) We don't have the manpower to do it
B) We don't have the proper equipment to do it
c) We don't have the logistics chain to support it
d) We don't have the transportation to do it
e) Everytime we put our troops under foreign command we get screwed over

3) Accelerate the replacement of our aging search and rescue helicopters and SeaKings with proper helicopters made to do the jobs that they are tasked to. Its apparent that the new helicopters weren't selected for the mission that they are needed, but out of political consideration

4) Scrap two of the four Iroquois Class destroyers, place them as battle group Command and Control ships one in each ocean. Use the money saved from the mothballing to improve thier anti-air, anti-sub, and area control capabilities

5) Start looking for a proper replacement for the aging and obsolete CF-18s, see what the American's and Russians have in Surplus. If we go to Mig 31's so be it, if we go to F15 strike eagles so be it

6) Force the British to take back our Upholder subs until they're ready to pay for them to be upgraded to a proper working condition.

7) A defense force consisting of mortors, SUVs and Dirtbikes is not the way to go, in this day and age of advanced reconaissance these guys would be chewed to pieces. Retire our Leopard I C2s and petition the Americans to sell us some of thier older M1 abrahams or the Russians to sell us some of thier T-72s

8) Scrap the Styker armoured vehicle purchase. Wheeled Vehicles as a main battle tank are a stupid concept., whoever thought it was a good idea should be fired, and the salary savings put towards a war memorial dedicated to those that lost thier lives serving a country lead by idiots.

9) Upgrade our airbourne reconaissance capability, see if the American's would lease us some E3 sentries

10) Increase our long ranged artillary forces, triple the number of tube artillary pieces that we currently have, also invest in long ranged missile systems.

11) Increase our ground based mobile antiair vehicles by three.

12) Recreate special warfare services as a seperate service, bring back the airbourne units.

13) Fire our current pacifistic defense minister since his only purpose in life is to abuse the military unless he needs them for a public photo op

14) Pass into Law that the Minister of Defense has to have served in Uniform at the rank of Colonel or above.

15) Create a oversight committee to control the defense budget

16) Adapt a french foreign legion model that everyone from cook to priest to accountant has to be able to pick up a rifle and fight competantly. Officers have to pass yearly combat leadership exercises.

Currently our military is rudderless and strong leadership and money is required to fix it. I'm not talking about throwing open the vaults and tossing money at the problem. However in the wake of Adscam, the gun registry and other money wasting scandals we know that the cash is there. But I guess our government has nothing to worry about until young men and woman get screwed over and murdered by our government

[kipperfan]

This is all a moot point, fact is, unless the Americans decide to come up north and attack(like we could stop em anyway!) Canada's military will NEVER be needed again. Unless you think we need those troops in Afghanistan?? I have no problem with sending peacekeepers, and cooperating with UN proposals, but for what possible reason do we need to pour tax payer money into military??

As it is, it looks like we are going to join hands with the Americans on the missile defence program, and if for some obscure reason a nation attacked Canada from the ground, the Americans would be here in minutes.

In this day in age, I want my money going to the education of our childern, the health of our citizens and social programs that help struggling candians. To spend billions of our money just to parade around a toy army is an exercise in futility.

[Looger]

Captain Crunch,

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

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

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.

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.

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??????

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.

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?

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...

[Looger]

Originally posted by kipperfan@Sep 25 2004, 09:51 PM
As it is, it looks like we are going to join hands with the Americans on the missile defence program, and if for some obscure reason a nation attacked Canada from the ground, the Americans would be here in minutes.

exactly.

plausible scenario:

terrorist nuke goes off on the white house lawn.

things get a little nutty.

america is under siege, and they make to secure resources (ie. us).

i would want the infrastructure in place to make them pay for the occupation. as well they would obviously be very aware of our intentions, and their respect of us would be greatly enhanced.

they play the alpha-male card quite a bit and the only way to deal with a rabid animal is with the use of force. even a serene animal responds to the THREAT of force.

we desperately need the ability to discourage occupation of canada, things may be brewing for russia to return to power, or for china to start taking bold steps. this means the likelihood of a nuclear confrontation would go up.

canada would of course be hit but not as much as the states. i just don't want to end up as a supply depot for america, a spot for their soldiers to run and hide.

[CaptainCrunch]

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

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by kipperfan@Sep 25 2004, 09:51 PM
This is all a moot point, fact is, unless the Americans decide to come up north and attack(like we could stop em anyway!) Canada's military will NEVER be needed again. Unless you think we need those troops in Afghanistan?? I have no problem with sending peacekeepers, and cooperating with UN proposals, but for what possible reason do we need to pour tax payer money into military??

As it is, it looks like we are going to join hands with the Americans on the missile defence program, and if for some obscure reason a nation attacked Canada from the ground, the Americans would be here in minutes.

In this day in age, I want my money going to the education of our childern, the health of our citizens and social programs that help struggling candians. To spend billions of our money just to parade around a toy army is an exercise in futility.

A) without any kind of military strenght you have no foreign policy position, you also have no strength in the UN security administration. you can continue to send money and hope its spend in the way that you want and thats it.

B) Why send peacekeepers if they can't support themselves, and aren't equiped properly.

C) Why pour tax payer money into the military? Beyond national defense and security and natural disastor and UN assistance why would we want to do that? Oh yeah because its important.

D) Do you want to have the Americans reacting to Canadian internal Security matters? And would they be in a big hurry to defend a weak nation that refuses to defend itself?

E) Its noble to say I would rather spend money on health and education. But the fact is that we are spending money on these areas. In fact we are spending more money then we need, but we're paying to support poor budget decisions, huge bearocracies and ineficent usage of dollars. There would be tonnes of money for all of these areas of concern if our government didn't spend money like a horny Canadian Business man on his first trip to the Phillipines

[peter12]

Dammit Cap'n I really enjoy reading any of your military posts. All well done.

[Looger]

yeah FAS is an epic site.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by peter12@Sep 25 2004, 10:47 PM
Dammit Cap'n I really enjoy reading any of your military posts. All well done.

Its the only area where I can compete with some of the geniuses on this board

[Looger]

Captain Crunch,

I know that the F-18 is superior in many ways to the F-20 in areas like thrust-weight, armament, etc. but areas like avionics and radar are upgradeable, and mostly due to the fact that the F-18 is in service and the F-20 is really not.

if we used the F-18 to its abilities i'd be glad, but we use it to within the abilities of much cheaper aircraft.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Looger@Sep 25 2004, 10:59 PM
Captain Crunch,

I know that the F-18 is superior in many ways to the F-20 in areas like thrust-weight, armament, etc. but areas like avionics and radar are upgradeable, and mostly due to the fact that the F-18 is in service and the F-20 is really not.

if we used the F-18 to its abilities i'd be glad, but we use it to within the abilities of much cheaper aircraft.

We did do a study once looking at the F-18, and because of the way the flight computers and sensor suites are placed into the craft, it was extremely cheap to move it up in flights.

If I read right the TigerShark might be a cheaper craft, but the upgrade costs would be fairly high.

Also The Canadian Airforce would never buy a single engine fighter due to the fact that they are much easier to go down after a engine failure.

the F-18 has dual engines with a fast replacement option (slide rails) and it can fly very well on a single engine. it also has the best glide characteristics of any craft outside of the F15E

[Looger]

Captain Crunch,

interesting tidbits on upgrades, had not thought of it, indeed i've never investigated how close canada may have been to craft purchased as alternatives to the f-18. i know we had at least one f-16 for a 'test-drive', it was painted up in a zarky flag color scheme.

as to the two-engine requirement now that i think aboot it it makes a lot of sense.

israel for example, small country as it is, something like a one-engined Kfir could lose power and stand a chance of landing safely. but in canada said plane might be over the NWT or something, not as rosy of a situation.

in fact the arrow for example, i think one of the requirements stated before the design team started was twin engines.

also combat survivability, lifting loads, etc. many reasons why twin engines are a good idea.

not sure what craft wold be ideally suited to canada. we're a 10% partner in the joint strike fighter program, are we not? or did we pull out?

lots of 4th/5th generation fighters 'on the market' these days seem to be one-engined, like the eurofighter, the rafale, the gripen (if available).

i do like your idea of using older soviet stuff, their avionics and control suites are pretty archaic but the airframes in general are in my opnion far superior to their westen equivalents, like their ability to recover from stalls, land on rougher surfaces, plus the power-to-weight ratios of
the MiG-29 and Su-27 are very impressive.

most importantly the passive IR detection systems are out-of-this-world. if the americans ever get into an air battle where they don't have air superiority i think a lot of their gizmos will look real junky. what good is stealth if you're painting yourself by using radar?

i think passive detection is a huge asset on tomorrow's battlefield.

i wonder if the americans would get a bee in their bonnet if we bought Su-27 variants and MiG-31s? that foxhound is a real arrow-type plane, fast and big.

[CaptainCrunch]

Captain Crunch,

interesting tidbits on upgrades, had not thought of it, indeed i've never investigated how close canada may have been to craft purchased as alternatives to the f-18. i know we had at least one f-16 for a 'test-drive', it was painted up in a zarky flag color scheme.

The CF-18 has lose harnessed computer systems that are harnassed into the fighter as oppossed to hardwired, makes for an easy upgrade or replacement. Canada looked at the F-18, the F-16, f-16 and the Eurofighter, and decided on the F-18 due to the fact that it was the best multiroled fighter at the time, with very good flight characteristics, easy maintenance and fit into a NATO role very easily.

as to the two-engine requirement now that i think aboot it it makes a lot of sense.

israel for example, small country as it is, something like a one-engined Kfir could lose power and stand a chance of landing safely. but in canada said plane might be over the NWT or something, not as rosy of a situation.

in fact the arrow for example, i think one of the requirements stated before the design team started was twin engines.

Yes it was also one of the first fighter craft designed with a 20 minute turn around on engine replacement, another key requirement

also combat survivability, lifting loads, etc. many reasons why twin engines are a good idea.

not sure what craft wold be ideally suited to canada. we're a 10% partner in the joint strike fighter program, are we not? or did we pull out?

If I recall correctly a lot of the control systems are being designed here as well. And I think we're still involved in the developement due to the fact that at one point Canada was looking at the JSF as a replacement. I do know that Canada's airforce is very interested in a scaled down F-22 Raptor, but the 102 mil per copy price tag is painful

lots of 4th/5th generation fighters 'on the market' these days seem to be one-engined, like the eurofighter, the rafale, the gripen (if available).

Its easier to do variable vectored thrust from a powerful single engine fighter. its also easier to shroud exhaust making infra red lockon more dificult.
i do like your idea of using older soviet stuff, their avionics and control suites are pretty archaic but the airframes in general are in my opnion far superior to their westen equivalents, like their ability to recover from stalls, land on rougher surfaces, plus the power-to-weight ratios of
the MiG-29 and Su-27 are very impressive.

most importantly the passive IR detection systems are out-of-this-world. if the americans ever get into an air battle where they don't have air superiority i think a lot of their gizmos will look real junky. what good is stealth if you're painting yourself by using radar?

Actually the next generation of the F-18 upgrade is due to include a helmet mounted infrared sight very similar to what you say in the Fulcrum. I do like Soviet strategy for rough landings, the ability to use Nato and Eastern Europe ammunition, thier cold weather ability and thier speed. I think a marriage between thier airframe and Western avionics would be a extremely tough fighter. Much like JApan's version of the F-15 (15j) which shares a airframe with its Yank counterparts and nothing else.

i think passive detection is a huge asset on tomorrow's battlefield.

i wonder if the americans would get a bee in their bonnet if we bought Su-27 variants and MiG-31s? that foxhound is a real arrow-type plane, fast and big.


The American's wouldn't, but Nato would. We're not obligated to a specific fighter type under the NORAD agreement. However we are somewhat restricted under or signature with NATO.

Chances are if we threatened the American's with a Mig purchase they would offer us the F-22 at a greatly reduced price, but 100 F-22 at 60 mil per copy is 6 billion dollars plus parts, training etc

[Looger]

i like the idea of a scaled down raptor, that thing is a predator. its supercruise capability is particularly well-suited to canada's territorial oddities (ie. SIZE).

but 100 we do not need - one squadron of say 30 is plenty, leaving lots of room for a few squadrons of cheaper planes. here's where some old soviet vintage can slip in!

maybe we can even lease them out as agressors, someone's got to teach the next generation of american pilots that their potential chinese opponents are not into the "duck and cover" or "run and hide" form of air combat that their own agressors seem to be bent on telling them.

the americans are finally into deployment of a good passive IR, eh? hmmm... all they have to do now is develop a ship-mounted missile defense system that can actually stop that SS-N-22 sunburn, and come up with a super-cavitating torpedo design, and they'll finally have caught up to low-tech 25-year-old soviet 'junk'...

well, the super-cavitating stuff hasn't been really _deployed_ for 25 years, maybe stalled in this development phase for 25 years would be a more accurate description.

i wonder if israel is selling those hopped-up MiG-21's yet...?

shrouded exhaust has pluses but it's not a fix-all - diffused heat energy still shows up with a good enough receiver, it may help for the extreme range but word is one of the main reasons the B-2 was cancelled was it was startlingly easy to catch with passive IR from that MiG-29 flown to turkey in 1989.

but word is lots of stuff has happened that hasn't, so who knows.

[CaptainCrunch]

i like the idea of a scaled down raptor, that thing is a predator. its supercruise capability is particularly well-suited to canada's territorial oddities (ie. SIZE).

but 100 we do not need - one squadron of say 30 is plenty, leaving lots of room for a few squadrons of cheaper planes. here's where some old soviet vintage can slip in!

I would agree with a flight of 30 two squadrons one in the east one in the west, and then either upgrade the F-18's to thier next level or look at some eastern block stuff.

maybe we can even lease them out as agressors, someone's got to teach the next generation of american pilots that their potential chinese opponents are not into the "duck and cover" or "run and hide" form of air combat that their own agressors seem to be bent on telling them.

Actually that would be a great idea as long as we don't have to actually use the chinese mig varients


the americans are finally into deployment of a good passive IR, eh? hmmm... all they have to do now is develop a ship-mounted missile defense system that can actually stop that SS-N-22 sunburn, and come up with a super-cavitating torpedo design, and they'll finally have caught up to low-tech 25-year-old soviet 'junk'...

I'm assuming your talking about the ram jet high speed variant as oppossed to the standard liquid rocket ss-n-22's. Since these are a mach 3 missile which is about 3 times the speed of the excocet(sp?) your probably looking at a front aspect kill, which would mean you would need a naval variant of the Patriot. Or depend on your Phalax to knock them down. chances are the American's would concentrate on killing the ships or planes carrying them before they close on the 250km range.

well, the super-cavitating stuff hasn't been really _deployed_ for 25 years, maybe stalled in this development phase for 25 years would be a more accurate description.

There were developmental flaws on the super-cavitating, one of which caused the destruction of the Kursk, due to the fact that to propel a torpedo in a bubble of air at high speeds you need volitile liquid fuel that tgends to be unstable.

i wonder if israel is selling those hopped-up MiG-21's yet...?

Unlikely as the only nations that are really in the market for advanced arms are usually not exactly friends with Isreal

shrouded exhaust has pluses but it's not a fix-all - diffused heat energy still shows up with a good enough receiver, it may help for the extreme range but word is one of the main reasons the B-2 was cancelled was it was startlingly easy to catch with passive IR from that MiG-29 flown to turkey in 1989.

If it gives you a percentage increase of evading a infrared missile its a handy piece of technology

but word is lots of stuff has happened that hasn't, so who knows.

[Cowperson]

I feel like I'm in a Tom Clancy novel.

Keep it up!!!

Cowperson

[Looger]

the east-west bases are a good idea.

i spent some time as a kid on vancouver island, port alberni, and occasionally i'd see some of our pilots messing around out of comox.

it startles me how badly we've let our air situation get these days, that is the main reason i'm not a fan of our having F-18s in the first place. cheaper planes may allow us to keep more bases open, more pilots, etc. i mean i know it's not a total crap plane, but if we're shoestring, we're shoestring.

no reason to use the chinese versions of russian designs, or the "Q's", but i'm sure they could be tweaked electronically to emit similiar signatures etc. at least for training purposes.

the real problem with the faster sunburns was (publicly) unveiled in a USN test in 1998, a naval reservist on hfboards sent me a bunch of links (that now escape me...) that seemed relatively legit.

the phalanx shot the sunburn full of holes, unfortunately it didn't really matter. the mass of the missile stayed together long enough to deliver its package, postage due.

this laser anti-artillery setups now has promise for ship deployment! if only they can keep the waves from rocking the ship...

yeah, the kursk thing is an example of the old soviet mentality, test the hell out of unproven and unreliable systems at the expense of your men. back in the gulag days things weren't as public as they are now, and that many sailors can't be airbrushed out of photos.

turkey has a bunch of wild weasel F-4's in for upgrades with IAI, those things will be hell on wheels when ready, a real true edge against greece (until greece's next purchases of course). israel does end up working with odds and ends like india and china, i'm pretty sure they woldn't turn down our money. if turkish money is good, any other NATO client might be as well.

i suspect mahjor infrastructure deals such as those, however, have more to do with israel watching its back, keeping a major ally as strong as it can. as such IAI and elbeit (sp?) may only work for whoever makes israel safer, and that's not us!

i remember well israeli reaction to the block-60 F-16 deal reached between united arab emirates and the united states - thye're distinctive-looking planes, the 'desert falcons', with the saddlebag fuel tanks. no money like oil money!

every little bit helps, but if a python-4 or r-77 is within the 'kill zone' on you, the diffusion of your IR signature is well past saving you - but it sure won't hurt your chances! 1960s era sidewinders are the level of device you could so avoid. the main objective i think with nozzles like those are to avoid initial detection from extreme range. not a bad idea at all, but not exactly as advertised to the casual (taxpaying) observer. there's lots of people that actually believe this stuff makes planes invisible to IR detection!

just something else like stealth technology, good against most things in most situations but ask the crew of that downed f-117 if the triangulation of 1970s-era low-power radar stations that zeroed in on their plane over the former yugoslavia cost 100 times less than the fighter or 200 times less.

i simply think the united states has made some high-level oversights that just may get a bunch of their boys killed, if something big starts.

like an extension of the experiment carried out by the USAF and SDI in the early eighties, nailing a transmitting satellite in LEO with a rocket launched from an F-15. put a bag of sand on a rocket, launch it from a foxhound at 70,000 feet in an opposite orbit to the (admittedly higher) GPS satellites, and BANG - there goes a whole orbit of 'em. done at the right time could hobble many aspets of guidance systems, black-ops seal teams, tank crews, you name it.

and stealth and air superiority are expensively mutually exclusive in my opinion. making the raptor tougher to spot may help in many situations but those would include losing persuers and sneaking into territory. the americans blast in with wild weasels, and enjoy complete and total air superiority before they commit their expensive toys.

like the latest apache longbows (assuming they get off the gound), could you imagine deploying them in a battlezone with even minimal enemy air activity? i bet a squadron of WWII era spitfires could cut a billion dollars out of the sky in ten minutes.

[CaptainCrunch]

the east-west bases are a good idea.

i spent some time as a kid on vancouver island, port alberni, and occasionally i'd see some of our pilots messing around out of comox.

it startles me how badly we've let our air situation get these days, that is the main reason i'm not a fan of our having F-18s in the first place. cheaper planes may allow us to keep more bases open, more pilots, etc. i mean i know it's not a total crap plane, but if we're shoestring, we're shoestring.

no reason to use the chinese versions of russian designs, or the "Q's", but i'm sure they could be tweaked electronically to emit similiar signatures etc. at least for training purposes.

the real problem with the faster sunburns was (publicly) unveiled in a USN test in 1998, a naval reservist on hfboards sent me a bunch of links (that now escape me...) that seemed relatively legit.

the phalanx shot the sunburn full of holes, unfortunately it didn't really matter. the mass of the missile stayed together long enough to deliver its package, postage due.

At mach 3 speed combined with the fact that the Close in system ranges measure in hundreds of yards, that would make sense. thats why you need a anti-air missile with a front on aspect kill. The Sparrow is probably still the best option because of its 30 mile range, and the fact that it uses a fractional kill instead of a warhead to warhead kill. However the biggest problem is that on a miss the Sparrow won't have the speed to turn and catch up to the sunburn. The Rim-667 would be within the secondary circle with a range of up to 100 miles and a variable fused fragmentational warhead. the the phalanx. However the Sunburn is pretty formidable. Long ranged, extremely fast and a heavy warhead. the only strategy is to use airpower to destroy any aircraft or ship carrying these things

this laser anti-artillery setups now has promise for ship deployment! if only they can keep the waves from rocking the ship...

I'm not sure if I'm all that sold on this concept. I'm wondering if your talking about the Northrop Grumman MTHEL. The biggest issue is that it might be too fragile for ship bourne duty, but fine for land deployment. The other issue that they're working with is the amount of power required to deliver anough of damaging blow to the warhead. Again power requirements on land are easy to fill. But power on a non-nuclear destroyer or frigate which are usually tasked to anti-air protection is difficult to achieve.

yeah, the kursk thing is an example of the old soviet mentality, test the hell out of unproven and unreliable systems at the expense of your men. back in the gulag days things weren't as public as they are now, and that many sailors can't be airbrushed out of photos.

I'm not sure if there was anyother way to test this thing without using a submarine with the capability to test the torpedo's deep deployment capability. IIRC there were some tests from the Russian test ranges that were fired from the shore.

turkey has a bunch of wild weasel F-4's in for upgrades with IAI, those things will be hell on wheels when ready, a real true edge against greece (until greece's next purchases of course). israel does end up working with odds and ends like india and china, i'm pretty sure they woldn't turn down our money. if turkish money is good, any other NATO client might be as well.

Outside of Turkey, which other nation in that region would be willing to allow Israel to work within thier defense industry?

i suspect mahjor infrastructure deals such as those, however, have more to do with israel watching its back, keeping a major ally as strong as it can. as such IAI and elbeit (sp?) may only work for whoever makes israel safer, and that's not us!

I'm not totally sure that Turkey would come to Israel's rescue if there was a major conflict in that region. this deal is about cold hard cash only

i remember well israeli reaction to the block-60 F-16 deal reached between united arab emirates and the united states - thye're distinctive-looking planes, the 'desert falcons', with the saddlebag fuel tanks. no money like oil money!

every little bit helps, but if a python-4 or r-77 is within the 'kill zone' on you, the diffusion of your IR signature is well past saving you - but it sure won't hurt your chances! 1960s era sidewinders are the level of device you could so avoid. the main objective i think with nozzles like those are to avoid initial detection from extreme range. not a bad idea at all, but not exactly as advertised to the casual (taxpaying) observer. there's lots of people that actually believe this stuff makes planes invisible to IR detection!

The actual use of the IR shrouds is two fold

1) Prevent a quick lock on by an enemy infrared targeting system which gives you more time to turn on your enemy.

2) Create a smaller heat aspect from the rear which reduces the chance of detection based on infrared. The other key point is that most of the planes that contain the shroud system like the Rafale, or the F-22, or the JSF have a stealthy surface, therefore not only is it hard to lock on with infrared, but they look like a small goose on radar and thus are ignored by most radar targeting systems

just something else like stealth technology, good against most things in most situations but ask the crew of that downed f-117 if the triangulation of 1970s-era low-power radar stations that zeroed in on their plane over the former yugoslavia cost 100 times less than the fighter or 200 times less.

i simply think the united states has made some high-level oversights that just may get a bunch of their boys killed, if something big starts.

Any kind of weapons advance usually happens after the first casualties start to role in. Ask the Canadian government about thier shiny new ross rifle. Or the Russians about the fuel lines in the turrets of the T-72, combined with a autoloader to reduce crew work. Two supposed inovations that utterly failed when the bullets start to fly

like an extension of the experiment carried out by the USAF and SDI in the early eighties, nailing a transmitting satellite in LEO with a rocket launched from an F-15. put a bag of sand on a rocket, launch it from a foxhound at 70,000 feet in an opposite orbit to the (admittedly higher) GPS satellites, and BANG - there goes a whole orbit of 'em. done at the right time could hobble many aspets of guidance systems, black-ops seal teams, tank crews, you name it.

I think your referring to the brilliant pebbles that the American's experimented with in the mid 70's. They went away from this to a hard aspect killing ASAT in the early 80's. but its further developement was banned under the last SALT treaty (i believe)

and stealth and air superiority are expensively mutually exclusive in my opinion. making the raptor tougher to spot may help in many situations but those would include losing persuers and sneaking into territory. the americans blast in with wild weasels, and enjoy complete and total air superiority before they commit their expensive toys.

like the latest apache longbows (assuming they get off the gound), could you imagine deploying them in a battlezone with even minimal enemy air activity? i bet a squadron of WWII era spitfires could cut a billion dollars out of the sky in ten minutes.

Attack helicopters are usually only deployed once one side or the other has complete control of the air and can back up thier helicopters with attack fighters or SAM support. For all of the failings of the Russian Military they had a clearer idea of this combined arm stuff. They'd usually hit you with artillary and aircraft, and while your clearing your head thier attack copters (my personal favorite Hind 24) supporting tanks and AFVs with mounted infrantry would be sitting on the lid of your holes. the only counter to that was to peel back thier layers. counter fire on thier artillary, man portable sams for helicopters, fighters on call for enemy air and enemy ground, and entrenched armour to deal with the armour strength. Leaving infrantry for guys like me.[B]