This dick has huge balls

[Rainbow Dash]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/06/03/pol-senate-page.html

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2011/06/03/depapecpsft-620.jpg

Bigger than most of the people on this forum.

cept snaf

cuz he's black

but seriously, whoa

[thehoodedsmack]

Read about her last night. Cool chick, though the way she expresses her opinions in the interview she gave seems a tad bit unsubstantial or naive. Point is, this country is in need of a political overhaul. The very idea that a single party can have a majority government in a multi-party country like Canada is absurd, and creates nothing but an elected dictatorship.

[Rainbow Dash]

A release from Senate Speaker Noël Kinsella said the page's actions constituted a contempt of Parliament.


Mike Duffy, a Conservative senator, said "stunts" such as the one DePape pulled Friday hurt democracy, rather than further it.

Oh, you mean like that contempt of parliament harper pulled???

:downs:

[TVTyrant]

And yet somehow he got re-elected. This is like if Nixon had gotten re-elected after Watergate.

[Rainbow Dash]

Ultra radical Lefties when holding positions close to Government officials need to be monitored more closely to prevent any potential acts they blah blah blah
Seriously, Brigette DePape is just a disrespectful and delusional leftist extremist. DePape is just another confused person who has been easily conditioned to believe the leftist rhetoric and propaganda. If DePape hates Canada and our parliamentary democracy this much than she should just leave our country.
Unfortunately when dealing with ultra Left wing radicals nothing can be taken for granted.

Today a sign, tomorrow who knows although I suspect the radical Left has planned and "war-gamed" several potential operations against the democratically elected Government of Canada.

Facts are an ultra radical Left wing supporter made it all the way to the floor of the Senate and was within feet of the PM, GG and other major Government officials.

Enhanced security techniques are now warranted.

I'd expect nothing less from a University of Ottawa Grad, Canada's number one breeding ground of Separtists, Anarchists and Terrorists, all heavily subsidized by Ontario Tax Payers.

whahahahahahahahah

if this is what qualifies as extremist for liberals how is that possibly a bad thing

oh cbc comments you're so cute.

[Bodzilla]

whahahahahahahahah

i didnt think canada had fox news????

[Rainbow Dash]

i didnt think canada had fox news????

CBC is pretty liberal, there's Cons in the comments section though!

[CN3089]

Well That Is Just Simply Not True.

[TeeKup]

"Demonstrations like these hurt democracy rather than further it."

Excuse me...what!?

A young woman protesting her government because of lack of faith in said government which is the duty of the people in a democracy hurts it? No it just hurts the positions of those controlling it through corruption and that spread their own agendas, not the needs of the nation. Dear god what the hell is happening in your country?

*looks at mine*

We're not much better off either...

[Sanctus]

At least there is someone who technically works in government kinda doing something about it. Is ANYONE here in the U.S. doing anything like that? No
And you're correct Teek

[Cortexian]

People thinking we don't need new fighter jets, take note of the crash at Cold Lake yesterday and stop being retarded.

Thanks.

They are literally so old that they're failing mid-flight and we don't have the replacement parts to keep them in the air much longer. The F-35 may not of been the best choice of a replacement fighter aircraft, but after buying into its development it was the only practical choice.

[Amit]

Then why don't we have the parts to replace the old ones? The government could replace any parts needed for the CF-18 jets for a fraction of the cost of what they are spending on the F-35 jets and bring them up to spec with the super hornet. There's no excuse to not have the parts. And now it's too late to do anything. After making those sort of upgrades to the CF-18 jets, I doubt there would be enough money to buy the target number of F-35 jets. Still, they could do what I suggested before: gradually phase out the CF-18's in groups.

[Rainbow Dash]

People thinking we don't need new fighter jets, take note of the crash at Cold Lake yesterday and stop being retarded.

Thanks.

They are literally so old that they're failing mid-flight and we don't have the replacement parts to keep them in the air much longer. The F-35 may not of been the best choice of a replacement fighter aircraft, but after buying into its development it was the only practical choice.

I don't understand, what does our old air force falling apart have to do with needing new jets :raise:

[thehoodedsmack]

We don't need fighter jets. It's political suicide to make an attack on Canada. We can maintain an air-force and navy with capabilities to patrol our borders, in order to stop trafficking and environmental crimes. But we do not actually need a combat-ready air-force.

So long as we're on the same side as the US, there's no reason to pretend they're not the Sparta to our Athens (though on much friendlier terms), and can handle protection of North America. That analogy used to be a lot better before our current PM got a majority government, by the way.

[TVTyrant]

We don't need fighter jets. It's political suicide to make an attack on Canada. We can maintain an air-force and navy with capabilities to patrol our borders, in order to stop trafficking and environmental crimes. But we do not actually need a combat-ready air-force.

So long as we're on the same side as the US, there's no reason to pretend they're not the Sparta to our Athens (though on much friendlier terms), and can handle protection of North America. That analogy used to be a lot better before our current PM got a majority government, by the way.
This. We love you guys. Mericuh wouldn't let anything happen.

[TeeKup]

Lancer is getting at the fact that the CF-18 is extremely obsolete.

[Amit]

Freelancer's concerns are legitimate. We can't count on independent groups ignoring our airspace for ever. However, the way the government is dealing with the issue is irresponsible. Then again, they are irresponsible when it comes to most matters with the country.

[Cortexian]

FYI, the crash at Cold Lake was a trainer aircraft and not a CF-18. It was even newer than the CF-18's and still fell out of the sky due to mechanical failure. Replacement parts for a fighter aircraft are extremely costly and single-purpose items, the reason we don't have replacements or upgrade the CF-18's to Super Hornet specs is because it wouldn't be practical.

Why would we spend half the cost of new fighter jets to upgrade old fighter jets to another obsolete standard that's not worth using and will still need replacement in a couple years?

Not to mention that Canada most certainly DOES need to maintain a combat-ready airforce, because if we don't we're not holding up our part of NORAD. If someone were to ever attack Canada or the United Sates from the North and we did nothing about it how do you think the United States would react when we ask them for help? Not to mention that our northern boarders are hardly even respected anymore because we have almost no way of patrolling them efficiently to deter illegal activities.

[CN3089]

There are far better, less expensive options than the F-35. And no, we really don't need an air force. Deal with it.

[Warsaw]

Like?

[n00b1n8R]

Hey Canada, fellow middle-power here, how's it hanging?
Just pointing out that anybody who's going to attack you is going to attack the US too so I don't see why you think having US to look after you is adequate.

China's getting hungry. Just saying.

[Amit]

Yes, it almost makes no sense to upgrade CF-18's to the near obsolete Super Hornet standard. However, sometimes, that's as good as it's going to get. We just don't have the money to buy all those F-35's. It makes equally no sense to buy the full amount of F-35's at the price that they will cost. We don't want to turn into the United States, do we? We would need less than half of the amount they are going to purchase in order to adequately patrol and defend our airspace. If a larger and/or superior air force does attack the northern regions, chances are that we're screwed anyways.

[Cortexian]

I don't think you guys get that we already spent $160,000,000 on F-35 development.

Why would you now chose to randomly buy a different aircraft? And why would we buy less? We're only buying 65 F-35's, and we only have 42 or so CF-18's right now... As n00b1n8R pointed out, if someone attacks the USA they're more likely going to be dealing with Canada at some point as well. With that in mind, any country or alliance that attacks the USA would have a great deal more than 65 fight aircraft.

Note that half of the aircraft will likely never be used to their full potential for sake of maintenance and such. Only half of the CF-18's we have are currently air-worthy. The ones we have on the ground are mothballed and stripped for parts.

It's also good to note that the Canadian CF-35 will differ from the American F-35A through the addition of a drag chute and an F-35B/C style refueling probe. Meaning we're getting something special to suit our needs better.

[CN3089]

I don't think you get what the sunk cost fallacy is.

[TVTyrant]

The F-35 is shat. Multi-purpose Jets/Planes are fail. The US had the right idea with the F-15, A-10, B-1, F-14 system we had in the 80s/90s. Multirole just means its not particularly good at anything.

[Warsaw]

Tell that to the pilots who fly the FA-18.

[TeeKup]

or the Dassault Rafael, or F-16 Fighting Falcon, or F-2 Viper Zero.

How about the F-15E Strike Eagle? One of the most powerful and successful fighters of its time if not THE best. Technically Eurofighter Typhoon is multirole as well, and it's a very capable aircraft.

I'm sorry tyrant but that claim was very baseless and stupid.

[Pooky]

How about the F-15E Strike Eagle? One of the most powerful and successful fighters of its time if not THE best.


F-15E Strike Eagle

Unit Cost: $42 million

http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/100839/f-15e-strike-eagle.html

Not that I disagree with you, just pointing that out.

[TVTyrant]

or the Dassault Rafael, or F-16 Fighting Falcon, or F-2 Viper Zero.

How about the F-15E Strike Eagle? One of the most powerful and successful fighters of its time if not THE best. Technically Eurofighter Typhoon is multirole as well, and it's a very capable aircraft.

I'm sorry tyrant but that claim was very baseless and stupid.
We haven't fought a modern air force since the Vietnam war, in which we struggled early on with multirole aircraft and divided up duties towards the end to take on different tasks, which we found to be highly successful.

Our airforce has been most effective in combat using A-10s to hit ground targets and using air superiority fighters to tear through opposing air forces. That was the plan in the Persian Gulf and it was insanely effective.

During WWII the French air force got dominated trying to use multirole aircraft against the Germans who used type specific planes. Same goes to our early efforts against the Japanese in the Pacific.

Yes, a multirole plane will be amazing against a military like Iraq's was. But I have NEVER heard of them being useful against other modernized forces. We could all use the planes we have now forever and they would be just as effective against our current opponents. You don't modernize big projects for use against the Taliban. You do it to be prepared for bigger opponents. Its not a baseless argument. I base my military arguments on battle strategy and overall outlook. The F-15E has certainly been impressive against planes the F-4 was shooting down in the 70s. We didn't want the F-22 for no reason. Dividing your plane numbers into categories is a smart idea if you are preparing for a serious conflict.

Very capable isn't as good as the best.

[Cortexian]

Most nations can't afford to operate specific-role fighters. Lets say we had air superiority fighters, air to ground fighters, and fighter-bombers but bought the same number as we are.

65 / 3 = 21 of each type. I'd rather have 65 multi-purpose jets that could potentially take on a (likely) smaller number of enemy air superiority fighters. Honestly, two F-35's would most likely be able to destroy a single F-22 Raptor (or similar superiority fighter) without sustaining casualties. Worse case scenario the F-22 takes out a single F-35 and then gets taken out in turn, F-35 pilot would most likely eject before turning into a fatality as well.

[sleepy1212]

pressing F-35 in every Canada thread. every single one.


ANYONE here in the U.S. doing anything like that? No

armed guards are all over the capital. you can even get in without a armed escort tour

[Warsaw]

Woha, hold on there TVTyrant. Don't even bring WWII into this. The French had an outdated airforce with only a few examples in service capable of going toe-to-toe with the Germans. Besides, they got dominated on the ground just as badly. Bad comparison.

[TVTyrant]

Woha, hold on there TVTyrant. Don't even bring WWII into this. The French had an outdated airforce with only a few examples in service capable of going toe-to-toe with the Germans. Besides, they got dominated on the ground just as badly. Bad comparison.
We haven't really had a mass conflict since. Thats the only reason I brought it up.

FreeLancer thats a very good point. I hadn't thought of that. My concern with the F35 program is that its supposed to take the position of the Harrier, the F16/15/22, the F18, all the ground attack variants of the F15/16, and supposedly the A10 as well. I have a hard time believing there is enough butter in that design for all the bread its supposed to cover (Bilbo quotes ftw?). Of course that only proposed usage. It just seems highly unlikely to me. But for a nation with a smaller military it does seem a better solution than massing huge amounts of non versatile aircraft and sending them into individual missions to support each other.

[Warsaw]

It will not be replacing the A-10. U.S. soldiers on the ground have petitioned to keep the A10 in service. The JSF doesn't even have the carrying capacity or strike capabilities even remotely approaching that of the A-10 and keeping the A-10 around is cheaper than switching to the JSF, so the guys in charge agreed.

Also, the high cost of the JSF is Lockheed-Martin's fault. They can't get their shit together. If anything, Canada should just hang tight with their current stuff and wait a few years after the JSF enters service so the price can cool off. Let the USA be the F-35 guinea pigs. It is our plane, after all. If war breaks out, there will more than likely be enough supply for us to loan to Canada.

[Cortexian]

Yeah but without training, loaning those to us wouldn't really be useful at all.

Also, Canada isn't getting the STOVL (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) version. We're getting a modified version of the F-35A variant which is a CTOL (Conventional Takeoff and Landing) instead of the other versions which are kind of useless for us since we don't have carriers or a need for STOVL.

To put the amount Canada ordered in perspective (65), the United States Marine Core alone ordered 340 F-35B's and 80 F-35C's. I also know of an order for 260 F-35C's for the United States Navy.

Now obviously I'm not trying to compare Canada to the USA, we have no need for such a large amount of aircraft. However, as I said if any nation or alliance ever were to attack the USA then Canada would probably get hit in the crossfire somewhere. A nation or alliance that attacks the USA by air would probably have a similar amount of fighter aircraft, the 65 we're ordering aren't enough to do ANYTHING except defense.

[Rainbow Dash]

You still haven't answered why we need these.

Right now the only regularly violent people are these "terrorist groups" across the planet from us, with no means of gaining access to anything that could threaten us militarily anyway. Then there's the Chinese, who if they wanted to invade us wouldn't be deterred by 65 nearly obsolete jets.

There are significantly more important things we could be sinking the money into.

[Cortexian]

Updated my post.

I think you've got your numbers wrong, as the F-35 isn't obsolete and that's what we'd be getting 65 of.

[Rainbow Dash]

I read the wrong wikipedia article.

oh well

that is a very nice plane!!!


Defence Minister Peter MacKay, when asked what would happen if the F-35’s single engine fails in the Far North, stated "It won’t"hahahahhahahah I'm sold on the idea of buying these already.

Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Operational_history

[Warsaw]

Yeah but without training, loaning those to us wouldn't really be useful at all.

Also, Canada isn't getting the STOVL (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) version. We're getting a modified version of the F-35A variant which is a CTOL (Conventional Takeoff and Landing) instead of the other versions which are kind of useless for us since we don't have carriers or a need for STOVL.

To put the amount Canada ordered in perspective (65), the United States Marine Core alone ordered 340 F-35B's and 80 F-35C's. I also know of an order for 260 F-35C's for the United States Navy.

Now obviously I'm not trying to compare Canada to the USA, we have no need for such a large amount of aircraft. However, as I said if any nation or alliance ever were to attack the USA then Canada would probably get hit in the crossfire somewhere. A nation or alliance that attacks the USA by air would probably have a similar amount of fighter aircraft, the 65 we're ordering aren't enough to do ANYTHING except defense.

Uh, you'd be trained on them. It's called setting up a lend/lease program. We did it in WWII, we can do it again. Besides, in the event of Chinese invasion, the USA would be doing the bulk of the front line work (Navy being all big and whatnot, fuck yeah), giving Canada plenty of time to reacquaint itself with modern warfare.

[Rainbow Dash]

You'd probably just get hacked and the war would be over in 15 minutes.

[Cortexian]

I read the wrong wikipedia article.

oh well

that is a very nice plane!!!

hahahahhahahah I'm sold on the idea of buying these already.

Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Operational_history
Most of the operational history is irrelevant seeing as how its still in development. Also, when an engine fails you do the same thing that you do in any other single-engine aircraft... Glide it until you start it again, if it doesn't start you find somewhere to ditch.


Uh, you'd be trained on them. It's called setting up a lend/lease program. We did it in WWII, we can do it again. Besides, in the event of Chinese invasion, the USA would be doing the bulk of the front line work (Navy being all big and whatnot, fuck yeah), giving Canada plenty of time to reacquaint itself with modern warfare.
I'm talking about a situation where some kind of hypothetical enemy were to attack from Canada's northern borders and proceed to the US. In a first strike situation like that there wouldn't be time for a lease/lend training program.

[Warsaw]

15 minutes longer than if Canada were the front line. :v:

But yeah, we are upgrading to "all digital" without the appropriate failsafes. A military that doesn't leave the manual option open is doomed to failure.

e: Ninja'd by Freelancer. Also, who the hell is going to sneak up like that? Who CAN sneak up like that without the satellites picking it up, ours, yours, or Europe's? Besides, I'm talking about a peace-time lend/lease until your country can afford to buy some outright.

[Cortexian]

I was under the impression that all generation 5 fighters could "sneak up like that".

Also, the USAF has a requirement of operating 2,000+ fighter aircraft don't they? I always assumed that if a northern invasion happened Canada would attempt to repel or divert until backed up by some fighters from the USA. Assuming any aviation action took place over our arctic boarders it would take USAF fighters at least two hours to get up here.

[thehoodedsmack]

Nobody's saying who our hypothetical threat is.

Because there is no threat.

And please, don't say China, you're all smarter than that.

[TVTyrant]

Nobody's saying who our hypothetical threat is.

Because there is no threat.

And please, don't say China, you're all smarter than that.
I thought of this as soon as this conversation started and lold.

[Rainbow Dash]

What good are 70 fighter jets going to be against an invasion :S

We have a huge border compared to the US, and they'd be scattered across the country anyway. There'd be maybe 10 jets tops able to intercept anything in a reasonable amount of time, the rest would have to come from across the country.

[Cortexian]

Sel, there are only two fighter bases in Canada. Cold Lake Alberta and somewhere in Ontario, that's where most of the fighters would be stationed. That gives them pretty good coverage across all of Canada, it only takes a fighter jet 2.5 hours to fly from coast to coast after all.

[Cortexian]

Oh also, just read up about the F-35 avionics platform "CATBIRD". Recently detected and jammed an F-22 in a test. Electronic warfare packages are approaching scifi levels of awesomeness. I love how the F-35 technically has "WiFi" haha.

I also didn't know that the F-35 has the ability to track multiple targets in all 360 degrees around it, the F-22 can only track targets in front of it and is supposedly can't track as many. Oh, the F-35 can fire at anything around it as well, the pilot just needs to pick one of the targets begin tracked and fire. Again, F-22 needs its targets to be in front of it.

[Warsaw]

Difference of the times. The F-22 is actually much older from a technological stand-point and can probably be upgraded with the same avionocs suite with relative ease. Oh, it's also better at stealth than the F-35.

But you are still missing the point. We are not really debating the fact that the F-35 is a solid aircraft, we are debating whether Canadian government needs to buy some. They don't. There is no immediate threat from anyone, and you failed to answer my question about who can sneak up like that without the spy satellites picking them up. If a government is paranoid about an imminent attack by a major power, then believe me they will be watching.

[Cortexian]

I told you, pretty much any generation 5 fighter aircraft can evade radar. It's pretty easy to evade satellites since they cover such a large area.

Still, there are reasons that Canada still needs to maintain an airforce. No point in us existing as a nation if we aren't going to enforce our borders, ships can't do that by themselves. There are also (apparently) a couple locations in the Rockies that Canada maintains a strict no-fly zone on, enforced by our airforce. Not to mention other military facilities like CFB Cold Lake, even civilian aircraft that wander into that airspace are escorted out by CF-18's right now.

[Warsaw]

And I told you, satellites. A radar-invisible aircraft is not invisible to visuals OR infra red. And any country with Gen 5 aircraft is going to be capable of detecting them.

[Rainbow Dash]

Sel, there are only two fighter bases in Canada. Cold Lake Alberta and somewhere in Ontario, that's where most of the fighters would be stationed. That gives them pretty good coverage across all of Canada, it only takes a fighter jet 2.5 hours to fly from coast to coast after all.

My point still stands, 35 jets, assuming they all get directed to one place and not split up to defend against multiple threats isn't going to be much of a deterrent to a serious invasion, it probably wouldn't even slow them down much :s

[Cortexian]

And I told you, satellites. A radar-invisible aircraft is not invisible to visuals OR infra red. And any country with Gen 5 aircraft is going to be capable of detecting them.
Pretty sure almost every military aircraft is basically invisible to visual satellite scans, they move so fast and generally blend in with whatever the satellite is looking down on. As for heat emissions, just wait for some weather activity and use it to mask your approach.

[Warsaw]

That same weather activity also screws with your firing solutions. Also, nothing is invisible to visuals. If I can see a space shuttle through my telescope, then a satellite that can pick out aircraft taking off from your proposed threatening power's bases and track them.

You are thinking too linearly. If you are waiting for them to be at your border before you move, you have already lost.

[Cortexian]

Okay, then my argument stands on the fact that we need something to go with the awesome helmets:
http://i.imagehost.org/0630/f-35-hmd.jpg

[Amit]

LOL. That's some crazy shape they got going there. Also, I believe the other major CF-18 base is in Bagotville, Quebec. We do keep a number of them at CFB Trenton, but I don't think it's a full squadron.

[TVTyrant]

Looks like something out of an anime.

[Warsaw]

Translation: it looks bad and awkward as all get out.

[Cortexian]

When in reality it's extremely comfortable, offers a greater field of view than normal helmets, integrates an electronic heads up display, and is more durable than previous helmets.

[Warsaw]

When in reality it's extremely comfortable, offers a greater field of view than normal helmets, integrates an electronic heads up display, and is more durable than previous helmets.

But it still looks like shit. Ergonomic stuff almost always looks like shit. Take EBR, for instance. Comfortable, but looks like shit. Tactical AKs: comfortable, but look like shit. Comes with the territory. That's all I was saying.

[TVTyrant]

Tactical AKs or synth stock AKs?

[Amit]

I like tactical and EBR weapons. They look cool.

[Warsaw]

Tactical AKs or synth stock AKs?

Tactical. Soviets used synthetic furniture plenty.

Amit: It's the EBR itself and fubar'd AKs that I'm criticizing, not tactical weapons in general. EBR looks flimsy. It's not the rails, it's the stock.

[Amit]

I liked the M14 EBR stock. It looks cool. Could be flimsy, I dunno. I doubt it, though.

Wait, what were we talking about again? It's hard to keep track when three of the most active threads in this section are on Canadian politics.

[Warsaw]

Like I said: it looks flimsy. It most certainly is not, but it looks like it is. Ergonomics never look good or proper.

We WERE talking about why Canada should or should not buy a bunch of F-35s right now. I'm against because the USA is going to have them and can have a peace-time training and lending program for the Canadian forces until the Canadian government has the money to actually buy some; money that does not need to be spent on things more pertinent to its citizenry. Since I pointed out all the holes in Freelancer's argument, he made a funny by saying that Canada needs an excuse to use that ridiculous-looking, if comfortable and functional, helmet. Hence our current discussion.

Also of note: the USA does not have the money to buy F-35s either, but who are we kidding? We always buy outside our means. :v:

[Amit]

Okay, so do we know how much Russia, China, and North Korea spend on stealth-capable fighter jets?

[Warsaw]

Russia is irrelevant, they couldn't afford a major conflict if they wanted to. China is also irrelevant because you need ground troops to actually invade, and the only way to get enough of them overseas fast enough is via boat; their numbers count for nothing if they all die at sea. North Korea is further irrelevant because...wait, are we really talking about North Korea?

[Cortexian]

I actually really like the F-35 helmet, looks bad-ass IMO.

Also, I'm of the opinion that everything Navy that doesn't directly relate to aircraft (see: carriers) is useless bullshit. You don't need ships to transport troops, all you need are some mega-planes and properly trained infantry forces that can jump into enemy territory. Not to mention that if a nation decided that it was going to completely convert from sea-based troop deployment to air-based troop deployment any country they decided to invade would have an insanely hard time defending against invasion. You could send fighters to counter the troop-planes, but they'd most likely be stealthed troop-planes escorted by stealthed fighters. Thus, allowing you to deploy anywhere, not just along beaches.

You can drop armor out of aircraft as well, four - six for current aircraft and different armor types.

Obviously, completely removing your Navy elements would mean seriously bolstering up your Airforce... IMO it's worth it though.

[Amit]

There are stealth troop planes now? And for the Navy being bullshit besides the aircraft...why? How the hell are you supposed to patrol waters without warships? You're more likely to encounter sea threats than air threats.


Russia is irrelevant, they couldn't afford a major conflict if they wanted to. China is also irrelevant because you need ground troops to actually invade, and the only way to get enough of them overseas fast enough is via boat; their numbers count for nothing if they all die at sea. North Korea is further irrelevant because...wait, are we really talking about North Korea?

Exactly, so we are in no immediate need for new fighter jets.

[Cortexian]

How the hell are you supposed to patrol waters without warships? You're more likely to encounter sea threats than air threats.
Planes... Planes cover more area and can scan a lot farther than Navy ships. Only thing Navy is good for is boarding and stuff, which can be done via Helicopter.

[=sw=warlord]

Planes... Planes cover more area and can scan a lot farther than Navy ships. Only thing Navy is good for is boarding and stuff, which can be done via Helicopter.

Planes can't use Sonar last I heard.
They also have limited space for equipment.
Let me know when you find a plane the size of a frigate or destroyer :)

[Warsaw]

There are stealth troop planes now? And for the Navy being bullshit besides the aircraft...why? How the hell are you supposed to patrol waters without warships? You're more likely to encounter sea threats than air threats.



Exactly, so we are in no immediate need for new fighter jets.

Pssst, Amit, I'm trying to support your case. Work with me here. =O

Also, Freelancer, the Navy can sink those precious carriers in one or two missiles from out of line of sight. Where are your planes now? Given the fact that not even China has a Navy to rival the USA, how well do you think that would go over for anyone trying to invade?

[Cortexian]

And planes can sink any Navy vessel before they even cross the horizon and into sight.

[Warsaw]

Um, what part about Navy not needing to be in sight to fire did you not get? It's been that way technically since WWI, but only recently has fire control gotten to the point that it is reliable. Also, a plane can be shot down much faster than a ship can be sunk. Boats win.

[=sw=warlord]

And planes can sink any Navy vessel before they even cross the horizon and into sight.

Boat engine fails, it just sits there, plane engine fails, pilot jumps out hoping not to land on their ass too hard.

[TPBlinD]

Planes are more expensive than boats
/thread

[Kornman00]

itty bitty baby, itty bitty boat

[Cortexian]

Planes are more expensive than boats
/thread
Nimitz class aircraft carrier - $4,500,000,000
Generation 5 Fighter - $150,000,000

Sorry what?

[Warsaw]

Pssst: You only get 30 fighters for the price of one carrier. That's not even enough fighters to fill up the damn thing! And what better place to put them than on a carrier?

Also, dem cruisers/destroyers are cheaper. Those are the ones that are going to shoot down the incoming planes, too.

[Cortexian]

Thing is, planes can take out a cruiser/destroyer with one missile just as easily as evading missiles fired at them. Also, planes are stealthed, ships are not.

[Warsaw]

Ships are not...yet. We haven't rolled out the Gen 5 equivalent of naval vessels yet.

And no, unless that plane is carrying one motherfucking huge conventional warhead or a small nuke, it is not sinking a ship in one shot. They are called bulkheads, and their job is to seal off flooded compartments. And then we have counter-flooding to stabilize the ship. There's also that little thing called damage control, something you cannot do on an aircraft.

Finally, it's also not likely to evade a ship's lock and several missiles fired at it. And like I said earlier, if you can build a Gen 5 aircraft (which the USA can, and you guys are trying to acquire), you can detect one.

This is not like World War II anymore, where you had to saturate the sky with fire to down a plane, where as all the plane had to do was let a torpedo fly. Now you can kill the plane before it sees you, and then you can shoot down any missile it fires with a CISW or, eventually, ABLS.

[Cortexian]

Except the plane can still see the ship long before the ship detects the stealthed plane. Meaning the plane can launch enough ordinance to sink a ship before they can react to effect damage control.

Anyway, I'm going to stop derailing the thread now. I've derailed all the other Canadian politics threads into "F-35's are needed" threads already.

[Kornman00]

Freelancer, you derailed your parents when you were born, you couldn't stop derailing threads with nonsense even if you wanted to

welp

[Bodzilla]

i too believe freelancer to prancing far too loudly proudly rowdy.

[Rainbow Dash]

Yeah, last I checked this topic was about the GREATEST THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, petite girls peacefully and silently protesting.

[Kornman00]

GREATEST THREAT TO DEMOCRACY
ie, dicks with huge balls

[Amit]

Pssst, Amit, I'm trying to support your case. Work with me here. =O

Which is why I agreed with you. I guess it sounded like something else.


Thing is, planes can take out a cruiser/destroyer with one missile just as easily as evading missiles fired at them. Also, planes are stealthed, ships are not.

This is a good point.


Except the plane can still see the ship long before the ship detects the stealthed plane. Meaning the plane can launch enough ordinance to sink a ship before they can react to effect damage control.


Planes are stealthed, ordinance is not. Every modern warship in the US and Canada are equipped with anti-ship-missile defense systems. They would shoot the missiles out of the sky before it can get within 1000 ft. of its intended target.

[TVTyrant]

Yeah, last I checked this topic was about the GREATEST THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, petite girls peacefully and silently protesting.
I wouldn't really call her petite, but well said.

[TVTyrant]

Planes are stealthed, ordinance is not. Every modern warship in the US and Canada are equipped with anti-ship-missile defense systems. They would shoot the missiles out of the sky before it can get within 1000 ft. of its intended target.
Many modern missiles are designed to fly at extremely low altitudes, making it almost impossible to lock onto. You'd do better shooting flak at them then using PATRIOTs or other missile defense systems.

[Amit]

I'm sure they've taken this into account already. If we know it, they know it and chances are have already done something about it.

[TVTyrant]

I'm sure they've taken this into account already. If we know it, they know it and chances are have already done something about it.
Not everything can be accounted for that way. Im sure they have done SOMETHING, but that doesn't mean the ships are invulnerable.

[Amit]

True and I'm not saying they are. Even for the ones they can detect.

[Amit]

Well, the F-35 is still supposedly a piece of junk: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-pentagons-new-trillion-dollar-jet-is-a-garbage-can

[Cagerrin]

That's kind of old news, there's so many things wrong with that "plane" I'm not even sure what order they happened in. Look up "fueldraulics" if you haven't already, why they thought that was a good idea I don't fucking know.

[Cortexian]

What's funny is that even though the Canadian military is no longer the ones in charge of making the decision over whether to buy them or not, the military people who wanted them are now the people advising the people who will make the decision. So we'll probably still end up with some of them, for better or for worse...

[TeeKup]

Well, the F-35 is still supposedly a piece of junk: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-pentagons-new-trillion-dollar-jet-is-a-garbage-can

For christs sake someone just pull the plug on that entire program.

[=sw=warlord]

Just build a metal gear rex already and have it tap dance on the caves.
With some luck you'll end up with all the taliban rattle out their caves like change on a washing machine in spin cycle.

[TVTyrant]

Just build a metal gear rex already and have it tap dance on the caves.
With some luck you'll end up with all the taliban rattle out their caves like change on a washing machine in spin cycle.
I thought Al-Qaeda was the one in the caves, and the Taliban were the guys who used to run the government of Afghanistan like a street gang and are extremely abusive to women and act like general dickheads but mostly do it in Afghanistan and Pakistan so we never did anything until after 9/11 when we realized they were harboring Bin Laden because he was paying them lots and lots of money.

[TeeKup]

Taliban are the extremist scholars who are into the political scene. Al-Qaeda are the actual militants.

[Amit]

They set up shop in Qatar recently.