Tories To Waste Billons On New Fighter Jets

[Omicron]

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.

Hmm... okay, that's interesting, but doesn't it cost more to maintain radials?

Also, don't turbos have a higher ceiling, which might matter for patrol?

Otherwise, I see your point about range.

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?

There's no conspiracy within Lockheed itself - they're just aircraft engineers - no more so than it's a Westinghouse conspiracy against big-oil that it's their reactor-design that's powering most of France now - however the behavior of the *shareholders* might be questionable...

Anyway, it's dumb to think that F-35s are useful for anything other than aggressive first-strikes.

They are not a patrol craft, and they'd suck as escorts.

 

[lone wolf]

Hmm... okay, that's interesting, but doesn't it cost more to maintain radials?

Also, don't turbos have a higher ceiling, which might matter for patrol?

Otherwise, I see your point about range.

Have no idea of maintenance costs. They're old tech - therefore much simpler. High ceiling doesn't matter in an aircraft that generally patrols at around five thousand feet.

 

[Omicron]

High ceiling doesn't matter in an aircraft that generally patrols at around five thousand feet.

Hmm... that's true... good point.

With a geography like Canada's, defense is 90% about patrol, so if Ottawa's hell bent on spending $16 billion, why can't it be focused on patrol craft?

 

[Bar Sinister]

Indeed.

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?

Germany now has a monster dirigible. It is expected to replace heavy lift helicopters for many industrial uses and would make a perfect patrol craft.

CargoLifter CL160 Super Heavy-Lift Cargo Airship - Aerospace Technology

 

[lone wolf]

Germany now has a monster dirigible. It is expected to replace heavy lift helicopters for many industrial uses and would make a perfect patrol craft.

CargoLifter CL160 Super Heavy-Lift Cargo Airship - Aerospace Technology

Can they be made self-sealing? That's a hell of a big target should one happen upon misadventure.

 

[Bar Sinister]

LOL.

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?

Apparently your thinking is stuck in the Red Dawn era. Do you really think the Russians are suddenly going to launch an invasion over the arctic? The Cold War is over. The likelihood of war with the Russians is about the same as that of Canada and Argentina going to war. In other words, pretty close to zero.

What is required in Canada's arctic is surveillance and rescue aircraft; something for which a modern dirigible is perfectly suited (I did say dirigibles BTW, not blimps - I hope you know the difference). The same is true of icebreakers. These ships are needed to maintain the waterways and establish a Canadian presence.

Neither dirigibles or icebreakers are intended to fight as the possibility of conflict in the arctic is negligible.

The demand for high tech fighter aircraft is base on one thing only; the desire of the Canadian air force to maintain its share of military spending. The fact that it has chosen to do so by asking for expensive and useless toys is unfortunate; but that is essentially what is going on.

 

[Omicron]

Germany now has a monster dirigible. It is expected to replace heavy lift helicopters for many industrial uses and would make a perfect patrol craft.

CargoLifter CL160 Super Heavy-Lift Cargo Airship - Aerospace Technology

Nice!

A fleet of those would make so much sense for so many applications all over the north!

What would be wrong with buying $16 billion worth of those?

Apparently your thinking is stuck in the Red Dawn era. Do you really think the Russians are suddenly going to launch an invasion over the arctic? The Cold War is over. The likelihood of war with the Russians is about the same as that of Canada and Argentina going to war. In other words, pretty close to zero.

A few years ago a Russian diplomat proposed to Ottawa to have a permanent shipping lane opened up between Murmansk and Churchill, and they even offered to maintain the ice-breaking (if there's anything Russians do right, it's ice-breaking).

For some reason Ottawa balked at the idea.

What is required in Canada's arctic is surveillance and rescue aircraft; something for which a modern dirigible is perfectly suited (I did say dirigibles BTW, not blimps - I hope you know the difference). The same is true of icebreakers. These ships are needed to maintain the waterways and establish a Canadian presence.

Hmm... the fact the Russians offered to do all the ice-breaking might be why Ottawa balked. It would amount to a de-facto forfeiting of Canadian jurisdiction over the shipping lane.

But suppose part of the $16 billion was instead spent on really good ice-breakers, such that Canada could maintain the lane on this side of the pole... then a shipping lane strait between Murmansk and Churchill would be cool, except... hmm... what would Canada and Russia have to trade?

Neither dirigibles or icebreakers are intended to fight as the possibility of conflict in the arctic is negligible.

The demand for high tech fighter aircraft is base on one thing only; the desire of the Canadian air force to maintain its share of military spending. The fact that it has chosen to do so by asking for expensive and useless toys is unfortunate; but that is essentially what is going on.

I know. What drives me nuts is, if they feel a need to spend billions on something, anything, in order to keep justifying their share of the budget, then why the heck couldn't they have at least gone for hardware that's useful?

 

[EagleSmack]

Apparently your thinking is stuck in the Red Dawn era. Do you really think the Russians are suddenly going to launch an invasion over the arctic? The Cold War is over. The likelihood of war with the Russians is about the same as that of Canada and Argentina going to war. In other words, pretty close to zero.

.

Nope I don't think they are going to launch an invasion. There is no need to. What they want is right in the Artctic.

Remember this?

CBC News - World - Russia plants flag staking claim to Arctic region

So launch you new dirigible and ice cutter fleet. You can watch them drill.

What is required in Canada's arctic is surveillance and rescue aircraft; something for which a modern dirigible is perfectly suited (I did say dirigibles BTW, not blimps - I hope you know the difference). The same is true of icebreakers. These ships are needed to maintain the waterways and establish a Canadian presence.

.

<H3>What is a Dirigible?

Although the term dirigible is most frequently associated with large rigid airships, a dirigible is any powered, steerable, lighter-than-air vehicle.

The term dirigible does not come from the word “rigid” but from the French verb “diriger” (to steer) and so a “dirigeable” (or dirigible, in English) is simply any lighter-than-air craft which is able to be steered.

The airships Hindenburg and Graf Zeppelin, the Goodyear blimp, the Zeppelin NT, and the early ships of Alberto Santos-Dumont are all dirigibles.


I'm sorry..You were saying?
</H3>

 

[Omicron]

Germany now has a monster dirigible. It is expected to replace heavy lift helicopters for many industrial uses and would make a perfect patrol craft.

CargoLifter CL160 Super Heavy-Lift Cargo Airship - Aerospace Technology
​

​

Can they be made self-sealing? That's a hell of a big target should one happen upon misadventure.

If it's a dirigible, and not a blimp, then ordinarily it would be full of gas-bags, such that if hit, then only bags in the line of fire would be popped, such that at worst it should just float to the ground.

In any case, I just did some research, and from what I can tell, delivery has been stalled because of problems with funding.

They raised the money as an IPO, and were able to build the hanger (the most important part, and currently the world's largest) but they ran short of money, and then mysterious "market forces" eventually caused things to happen in such a way where they were not able to do anything without "partnering" with a traditional player like Boeing, and since Boeing landed itself on the board of directors, everything's been turned into an endless cycle of design studies. ("Free-Market" my ass.)

Now, if a Trudeau were still in charge, and if he was pressured to spend $16 billion, he would have gone to Germany, taken a controlling interest in the struggling company, ordered up a fleet at cost which he could of course do as a key investor, hand them over to the air-force so it could stop feeling ignored, and now the north is getting patrolled, and the money has been spent on something that actually delivers a useful result.

*That's* how *real* leadership works.

 

[EagleSmack]

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?

Come on...the guys you know evaluate war games? Please stop making a fool of yourself.

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 you mean Attack Submarines...key word attack. Hardly used for defense. They are used to attack missle boats, ships, and to launch subsurface missles (please don't confuse that with aircraft) at land targets as well.

You aren't very bright. I'd suggest you do some reading before you challenge me.

If it's a dirigible, and not a blimp, then ordinarily it would be full of gas-bags, such that if hit, then only bags in the line of fire would be popped, such that at worst it should just float to the ground.

.

You aren't very quick are you. A blimp is a dirigible.

 

[Omicron]

Come on...the guys you know evaluate war games?

Yup. I'm not a kid.

And it's not *all* the guys I know... just some of them.

And I'm not a "pinko communist"... as a matter of fact I'm a businessman, who happens to like the society in which he lives, such that he gets really ticked off when his tax dollars are pissed away on useless Christmas-tree ornaments like F-35s.

Le'me ask you a question. Where is the world's largest cyclotron located?

Oh you mean Attack Submarines...

Is that what you call them?

... key word attack. Hardly used for defense. They are used to attack missle boats, ships, and to launch subsurface missles (please don't confuse that with aircraft) at land targets as well.

Ability to destroy inbound offense equipment like nuclear subs, aircraft carriers and missile boats *is* defense!

Now I am being sarcastic: I can understand how you as a marine would not be familiar with the concept of defense, given how you guys were trained from the days of Jefferson to be a force of outbound strike.

You aren't very bright. I'd suggest you do some reading before you challenge me.

You aren't very quick are you. A blimp is a dirigible.

*Sob*... you see, this is where we have a problem. In fact I don't hate you. I only fight against enemies, and if they push it to a fight, I fight to win, in such a way that they-and-it can never do-or-happen again. Fighting is not a sport for me.

Yes there is a difference between blimps and dirigibles.

 

[Colpy]

Yup. I'm not a kid.

And it's not *all* the guys I know... just some of them.

And I'm not a "pinko communist"... as a matter of fact I'm a businessman, who happens to like the society in which he lives, such that he gets really ticked off when his tax dollars are pissed away on useless things like F-35s.

Le'me ask you a question. Where is the world's largest cyclotron located?
Is that what you call them?
Ability to destroy offense equipment like nuclear subs, aircraft carriers and missile boats *is* defense!

They don't attack the source nation. They attack things launched by the source nation.

I can understand how you as a marine is not familiar with the concept of defense. You guys were trained from the days of Jefferson to be a force of outbound strike.
*Sob*... you see, this is where we have a problem. In fact I don't hate you. I only fight against enemies, and if they push it to a fight, I fight to win, in such a way that they can never do it again. Fighting is not a sport for me.

Yes there is a difference between blimps and dirigibles.

Ah, you do understand that Billy Bishop used to shoot down dirigibles with his Sopwith Camel and Lewis .303 machine guns, don't you??????

And yes, I know they were prone to explode back then, filled with hydrogen.

But I do think you've become confused.....we are talking about 21st century warfare here. Not early 20th century......

Dirigibles are great for forestry............somewhat vulnerable in the defense role....

:roll:

PS: Actually, Billy Bishop flew a Nieuport 17.........but the Lewis gun was accurate. I looked it up.

 

[Omicron]

Ah, you do understand that Billy Bishop used to shoot down dirigibles with his Sopwith Camel and Lewis .303 machine guns, don't you??????

No I didn't... although I've heard his career has been filled with lots of myth.

And yes, I know they were prone to explode back then, filled with hydrogen.

But I do think you've become confused.....we are talking about 21st century warfare here. Not early 20th century......

Dirigibles are great for forestry............somewhat vulnerable in the defense role....

:roll:

Indeed, dirigibles are not mighty forces for defense. As already noted by others, the issue isn't early detection and protection from an attack coming over the pole... the issue is that in order for Canada to justify it's claim of the north before the court of the Haig, it needs to show it can take care of it, with patrol, surveilance and rescue, which dirigibles can do fantastically.

Crumb, given how gas-heating is part of what creates lift, it means the colder the air, the better the lift.

PS: Actually, Billy Bishop flew a Nieuport 17.........but the Lewis gun was accurate. I looked it up.

I read that the issue of Billy Bishop actually having shot down the Red Baron is not certain, but hey... call it early good spin-doctoring... maybe the first time Toronto discovered it has a brain... still... if anyone could have been cool enough to explain to French Canada early on how brilliant they are, we could have been piping movies down to the US at volumes greater and of a quality finer than anything Hollywood was doing.


I know this is off thread, but... am I the only guy here who heard the story about how in WW-I the Canadian rep general physically attacked and then verbally abused and challenged the Brit-General in a meeting where if the Brit-general didn't start treating Canadian forces like they were something other than fodder, then all alliances were off, until the Brit-general complied?

Then the grunts did Vimy ridge, and the fate was sealed... Canada is a real nation... Lord God help this dominion.

 

[lone wolf]

Gas heating? That's something different again. Are you sure we didn't discuss nuclear batteries at one time?

 

[Omicron]

Gas heating? That's something different again. Are you sure we didn't discuss nuclear batteries at one time?

Possibly. There was a time when I thought a good way to elevate a dirigible was to have it powered by a small nuclear reactor cooled by the gas giving it lift.

 

[Bar Sinister]

[=EagleSmack;1316501]Nope I don't think they are going to launch an invasion. There is no need to. What they want is right in the Artctic.

Remember this?

CBC News - World - Russia plants flag staking claim to Arctic region

So launch you new dirigible and ice cutter fleet. You can watch them drill.[

I am quite familiar with the Russian claim. But backing it up with force is quite another thing. The Russians are using this as a negotiating ploy; they have no intention of going to war in one of the least hospitable places on the face of the earth. You can't claim land with fighter planes you have to have a presence and the last time I looked their were no Russians in any area of the arctic claimed by Canada. Or perhaps you know something that I do not. If so please tell me what part of the Canadian arctic the Russians are drilling in.

I stick to my position that the purchase of these fighter planes has nothing to do with preservation of Canadian arctic sovereignty and a great deal to do with making sure the air force gets a bunch of fancy new toys that will be just as useless as the last bunch of aircraft Canada purchased from the USA.


[/QUOTE]<H3>What is a Dirigible?

Although the term dirigible is most frequently associated with large rigid airships, a dirigible is any powered, steerable, lighter-than-air vehicle.

The term dirigible does not come from the word “rigid” but from the French verb “diriger” (to steer) and so a “dirigeable” (or dirigible, in English) is simply any lighter-than-air craft which is able to be steered.

The airships Hindenburg and Graf Zeppelin, the Goodyear blimp, the Zeppelin NT, and the early ships of Alberto Santos-Dumont are all dirigibles.

It appears that over the years, as I am sure you are aware, the meaning of the word dirigible has changed so that it now refers to airships with airframes and any airship without a frame is now a blimp or balloon. I'm sorry..You were saying?
</H3>[/QUOTE]

I refer you to this site Dirigibles, Zeppelins, and Blimps and quote: Zeppelins like the Hindenburg are often called “blimps,” but that is not correct; Hindenburg was a rigid airship which maintained its shape by means of a metal framework, and not from the pressure of the gas within its hull.
The modern Zeppelin NT (one of which is operated by Airship Ventures) is also not a blimp, but rather a semi-rigid airship, since it has a rigid framework which supports its main structural components.

- You were saying?

 

[CDNBear]

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?

FYI...At you.

Which is why you have no clue.

fify.

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.

Hmmm, steath by running silent, is still stealth...

Run Silent, Run Deep - Navy Ships

It doesn't matter how much back peddling and double talk you spew, stealth and silent running, are the same thing.

Now, if a Trudeau were still in charge, and if he was pressured to spend $16 billion, he would have gone to Germany, taken a controlling interest in the struggling company, ordered up a fleet at cost which he could of course do as a key investor, hand them over to the air-force so it could stop feeling ignored, and now the north is getting patrolled, and the money has been spent on something that actually delivers a useful result.

*That's* how *real* leadership works.

This is true, unfortunately that's not how Trudeau operated.

Yup. I'm a kid.

fify.

And it's not *all* the guys I know... just some of them.

Maybe you should ask them, if they're not imaginary, how silent running, is stealth.

Ability to destroy inbound offense equipment like nuclear subs, aircraft carriers and missile boats *is* defense!

Funny, I'm pretty sure the F 35 can do that too. Oh, but wait, it has stealth technology, and that's first strike technology.

Kinda like running silent, first strike operations...

I only fight against enemies, and if they push it to a fight, I fight to win, in such a way that they-and-it can never do-or-happen again.

That's interesting, how exactly do you do that, while trolling from behind the iggy button?

Fighting is not a sport for me.

That's obvious. Cowardly trolling, from behind the igg button seems to be your sport.

 

[petros]

DAMMIT! I want more satellites! You kids can play on earth with your antiques. I want more than 6% of space. We are severally falling behind.

 

[Kakato]

Icebreakers and patrol boats would be a huge waste of money,were talking about ice that gets over ten feet thick and starts freezing back solid within seconds of it being broken.

We have people up there,they are called Rangers and are native Inuk that know the land and how to survive and patrol it better then anyone else.

These rangers still train US and Canadian troops in the Arctic.
High tech anything is not very reliable where temeratures commonly hit -70 ambient celsius.
Diesel,furs and british ww2 303 rifles still rule the arctic.

 

[EagleSmack]

Yup. I'm not a kid.

And it's not *all* the guys I know... just some of them.

I'm starting to think you are a kid.

And I'm not a "pinko communist"... as a matter of fact I'm a businessman, who happens to like the society in which he lives, such that he gets really ticked off when his tax dollars are pissed away on useless Christmas-tree ornaments like F-35s.

Who said you were a commie?

Le'me ask you a question. Where is the world's largest cyclotron located?

Canada.

Le'me ask you a question. Where is the world's largest rubber-band ball located?

Is that what you call them?
Ability to destroy inbound offense equipment like nuclear subs, aircraft carriers and missile boats *is* defense!

Are you soft? The ability to hunt and kill missleboats, carriers, launch missles from below the surface to hit surface target, the ability to hunt and sink ships of all kinds defense?

Now I am being sarcastic: I can understand how you as a marine would not be familiar with the concept of defense, given how you guys were trained from the days of Jefferson to be a force of outbound strike.

1775

*Sob*... you see, this is where we have a problem. In fact I don't hate you. I only fight against enemies, and if they push it to a fight, I fight to win, in such a way that they-and-it can never do-or-happen again. Fighting is not a sport for me.

You're losing

Yes there is a difference between blimps and dirigibles.

No, there isn't. I proved that.

I am quite familiar with the Russian claim. But backing it up with force is quite another thing.

The Russians don't have a force to back this up? I think you are mistaken.

The Russians are using this as a negotiating ploy; they have no intention of going to war in one of the least hospitable places on the face of the earth.

I never said they did.

You can't claim land with fighter planes

But you can claim land with blimps?

you have to have a presence and the last time I looked their were no Russians in any area of the arctic claimed by Canada. Or perhaps you know something that I do not. If so please tell me what part of the Canadian arctic the Russians are drilling in.

There aren't yet. However they have been visiting unannounced. Any reason why they would do that?

I stick to my position that the purchase of these fighter planes has nothing to do with preservation of Canadian arctic sovereignty and a great deal to do with making sure the air force gets a bunch of fancy new toys that will be just as useless as the last bunch of aircraft Canada purchased from the USA.

No, it is modernizing the CAF. It is not a new concept.

I refer you to this site Dirigibles, Zeppelins, and Blimps and quote: Zeppelins like the Hindenburg are often called “blimps,” but that is not correct; Hindenburg was a rigid airship which maintained its shape by means of a metal framework, and not from the pressure of the gas within its hull.
The modern Zeppelin NT (one of which is operated by Airship Ventures) is also not a blimp, but rather a semi-rigid airship, since it has a rigid framework which supports its main structural components.

- You were saying?

This...

Although the term dirigible is most frequently associated with large rigid airships, a dirigible is any powered, steerable, lighter-than-air vehicle.

And I'll add this...

PWNED