Why do we need stealth anyhow? Without strength in numbers, something that throws a radar image like a couple of squadrons might be better to scare the bad guys away.
Tories To Waste Billons On New Fighter Jets
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
The issue of stealth is another one of those things that have some people on edge about the purchase, because, normally, stealth is mostly useful only when you're being the aggressor.
You know what drives me nuts about having the kind of PM we've got now?
It's because a meeting would go like this:
Lobbyists: "... and in summation, the fact that the F-35 is a *stealthy* fighter-bomber demonstrates that it's only valid function is if we're the aggressor, but we are a peaceful nation who will never start it."
Prime Minister: "Okay, then I'll tell Lockheed Martin to not include the stealth option."
Last edited:
That gets a thumbs up for awesome trolling effort.
Wasn't that you in one of the deleted posts?
question from omicron:
Hey Juan, I have a question: What's your opinion of drones?
I assume you are talking about aircraft like the Predator. I only know what I've read. There can be no doubt these things have a roll
but their operation is very specialized. Using them for patrol and recon seems the first choice but no doubt they can be used as
attack vehicles. I would bow to someone with first hand knowledge on the subject.
The water refreezes end of september and stays frozen untill late june and we are mining there in a big way right now.
You want patrol boats up there then you better have some huge icebreakers to stay ahead of said patrol boats as it will refreeze very fast.:lol:
Right you are. Icebreakers and long range patrol craft will be more useful than warships. What is required to establish sovereignty is a presence and Canada has backed away from that due to the cost of maintaining a military in the arctic. High priced air supremacy fighters will not make much of a difference compared to aircraft that can stay up for a long time. In that light it may be worthwhile looking at a few of the modern dirigibles that are under development.
Indeed.
As a joke, I told some puppets from the dark side of the American military-industrial complex that Canada should deal with unwanted immigrants by offering border-breakers coming in on ships from Sri Lanka the option of settling in the northern islands - in order to re-enforce Canada's claim to the north by virtue of settlement - and their reaction was so freaky that now I'm thinking the idea might have some validity... American domination of the western hemisphere is simpler for their strategists if they don't have to factor in Canada's claim to those northern islands.
The way to pacify their freak-out was to tell them that F-35's would be good patrol craft (when in fact those are just fancy, super-expensive first-strike missiles) and they bit.
It wouldn't be if we'd use the money being pissed away on fat piloted first-strike missiles to build some subs. Even Sweden has home-made subs, which they went for because it was the cheapest way to patrol their waters.
So, so, so true.
8O Woah! Really? The concept of dirigibles is *great* if they can be made to work! Who's designing them?
Ultimately they're just subs in the air and they're easier to hit, but still, it's a cool idea if you need to be looking down.
Who's doing it?
Last edited:
LOL.
You brought this up and were laughed at and then tried to back peddle.
F-35's are now missiles?
Any other things you want to teach us?
Maybe we have some left over from WWI
Dirigibles are just subs in the air?
Priceless...simply priceless.
No one. Lead the way.
Ok. So you want to patrol...but not defend?
How can an Ice Breaker match up to a Russian Frigate? How can the Goodyear blimp match up to a MIG?
*Yawn*... I have relatives in the USAF, and everyone knows that fighter-bombers are fancy piloted first-strike missiles. Canada does *not* need them, unless it were to be planning to attack the US, which it's not... although Harper might be that loopy... but it's definitely not what the people want.
You're acting like you've got stock in Lockheed Martin and are trying to protect your investment, because every child beyond a fifth-grade education knows that dirigibles are to the atmosphere what subs are to the oceans.
Huh? Same thing dude, or are you trying to twist semantics?
It can't. But subs can.
Last edited:
Really? So you have relatives in the USAF and now you are an expert!
And everyone knows that fighter bombers are first strike missles?
Are you really that dense?
Wow. I really can't say much more to this.
Not at all. You want to patrol with blimps and ice breakers...very well patrol.
How can you defend with them? They could not stop a bloody thing. What does an ice breaker have for weaponry? What does a blimp have? Can a blimp manuever and defend itself?
Well you better get building or buying then. That is about the only time you actually made sense and had a clue.
Sorry jarhead, but that is exactly how air-force strategists view the things.
Other than to say how your stock will loose value if somebody doesn't buy those over-bloated F-35s?
I didn't say to patrol with blimps and ice-breakers. I said to patrol with subs, although the idea of using blimps to look down over the high arctic is intriguing.
Do you have any idea how stupid would be the idea of patrolling with F-35s?
I know, that's what drives me nuts. The $16 billion they're going to spend on aircraft of zero value to Canada's defensive needs could be spent tooling up factories to build subs.
Last edited:
"this cold war is not over, just taking a break."....now that's a line for a movie!!!
That's gotta be one big factory. Most I know of were erected in shipyards.
I say re-tool Wright or Pratt and Whitney for radials and re-engine the Auroras.
I say re-tool Wright or Pratt and Whitney for radials and re-engine the Auroras.
Last edited:
I'm not thinking of big giant first-strike nuclear subs. I'm thinking of a new-age stealthy sub. Think of the jobs it would create, resulting in some real defense.
Last time I checked, New Brunswick already had the shipyards in place for that kind of work.
That is an intriguing idea, but Aurora's were mostly for spying... no?
I'm thinking that for patrolling, of course subs are best for the water, but now that the thought has been put in my head, I can't stop wondering if new-age dirigibles might not be best for patrolling over land.
Hmm...
Aurora is the patrol aircraft that replaced Argus. I say radials due to fuel consumption. Turbos suck back lots of it and Aurora isn't capable of mid-air refuelling.
No, it really isn't. Idiots may view things that way though. People who know the difference between an aircraft and a missle do not view them that way.
That is your come back?
What do you patrol with now?
Intriguing for what? Looking at ice?
You're a genius Omi
Woulodn't that be for aggression?
"The issue of stealth is another one of those things that have some people on edge about the purchase, because, normally, stealth is mostly useful only when you're being the aggressor."
Which is why I think you have no clue.
Hmm... then how come the guys I know who evaluate war games (the real kind) say that fighter-bombers are used the same way one would use a cruise missile, the only difference being that one hopes to get the fighter-bomber back?
:roll: No, melted tundra subsequent to global warming.
As for the attempt to derail the discussion in order to protect your investment in Lockheed Martin by trying to confuse people's heads with notions of stealth fighter-bombers being somehow the same as stealthy tactical subs, *sigh*, okay for the sake of those not clear on the concept, it's this: Perhaps I should not have said "stealthy sub", because it confounds the minds of marines... I should have said "silent subs", which are a type of tactical sub used for defense purposes... they run quiet in order to tail giant nuclear subs and aircraft carriers.
Oh, Damn! CP-140 Aurora is a Canadian-built P-3 Orion ... which is a product of Lockheed. Does that make us part of the Lockheed conspiracy?