REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

cressydrift · 07-30-2010, 11:06 PM

Since we are on the topic of planes...

twitchyzero · 07-31-2010, 12:55 AM

Onassis · 07-31-2010, 02:20 AM

Modern Warfare 2 anyone ?

jimmerz · 07-31-2010, 02:35 AM

what do the americans have on the aircraft carriers now?? no more f-14's right? f18's and f35's?

JD¹³ · 07-31-2010, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmerz

what do the americans have on the aircraft carriers now?? no more f-14's right? f18's and f35's?

F14 is no longer in service you're right. Vast majority of the duties are carried out by the FA-18E/F Super Hornet. F35's will come in a few years.

Qmx323 · 07-31-2010, 08:31 AM

^ I dunno lol

jimmerz · 07-31-2010, 08:54 AM

rn't super hornets from about the same era as the f14s?

MarkyMark · 07-31-2010, 09:12 AM

So is there ever going to be a definate answer on who claims all the arctic or is it whoever wins the fight when shit goes down
Posted via RS Mobile

belka · 07-31-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmerz

rn't super hornets from about the same era as the f14s?

No, the SH replaced the F14's. Not everyone in the Navy was happy about it. (The replacement, not retiring the F14's.)

seakrait · 07-31-2010, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

So is there ever going to be a definate answer on who claims all the arctic or is it whoever wins the fight when shit goes down
Posted via RS Mobile

that's what i find weird. you'd think all that shit would have been figured out already but there's somehow still contention about who owns what up there.

I wonder how serious Harper is about maintaining Canadian sovereignty up there. I bet the US will never let us get soft about it. Better Canada own the land up there than the Russians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmerz

rn't super hornets from about the same era as the f14s?

1970 first flight for the F-14 Tomcat vs 1995 first flight for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (aka "Rhino"). The F/A-18A Hornet first flew in 1980. The Super Hornets (Rhinos) replaced the Tomcats in 2006. So currently, the Super Hornets (Rhinos) and 'regular' Hornets are serving together onboard the US carriers.

Quote:

The U.S. Navy currently flies both the F/A-18E single-seater and F/A-18F two-seater in combat roles, taking the place of the retired F-14, A-6 Intruder, S-3 Viking, and KA-6D. An electronic warfare variant, the EA-18G Growler, will replace the aging EA-6B Prowler. The Navy calls this reduction in aircraft types a "neck-down". In the Vietnam War era, the Super Hornet's capabilities were covered by no less than the A-1/A-4/A-7 (light attack), A-6 (medium attack), F-8/F-4 (fighter), RA-5C (recon), KA-3/KA-6 (tanker) and EA-6 (electronic warfare). It is anticipated that $1 billion in fleet wide annual savings will result from replacing other types with the Super Hornet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hornets

Hornets and Super Hornets will serve complementary roles in the US Navy carrier arsenal, until the deployment of the F-35C Lightning II, which will primarily replace F/A-18A-D Hornets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet

Quote:

Originally Posted by jivan6

isn't the bear, the fastest propeller-driven aircraft in history?

yes, the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear is the fastest prop-driven plane at a max speed of 920 km/h (510 knots, 575 mph). In contrast, the Hornet's and Super Hornet's max speeds are Mach 1.8+ (1,190 mph, 1,900 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m).

LG Hunter · 07-31-2010, 03:23 PM

J____ · 07-31-2010, 03:58 PM

lol ruskies. My fiance hates them cuz she gets mistaken for one all the time lol. well hate is a strong word...

belka · 07-31-2010, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J____

lol ruskies. My fiance hates them cuz she gets mistaken for one all the time lol. well hate is a strong word...

A ruskie or a bear?

I'd like to see what would happen when a Blackjack with a fighter and tanker escort decides to make a recce trip to northern Canada. Will the public finally support the need for a modern Air Force and military in general?

CRX SiR · 07-31-2010, 07:18 PM

I really wish the F-35 had supercruise (officially) with how big our nation is and how long it takes to get from our air bases to the arctic, that extra speed could make all the difference

Edit: Which jet would you like Canada to have? There is talk they are gonna make an export version of the F22 since the russians released their counterpart to the presses (T-50).

I personally think the Typhoon is a better plane for our country, but the F35 has really good potential so i still support the F35, even if i dont think 65 will be enough in the long run. If they do get the global hawk or another HALE to compliment the f-35 it will make it easier to patrol the coast and arctic, and 65 might be enough.

CRX SiR · 07-31-2010, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD¹³

What nationality is that Eurofighter? I can't make out the markings on my iPhone.
Posted via RS Mobile

Royal Air Force

seakrait · 07-31-2010, 08:00 PM

how about we just buy 19 of these for the price of one F-35 Lightning II? that means that instead of the 65 F-35 Lightnings we're slated to purchase, we can get 1235 of these babies!

MQ-9 Reaper

or maybe 1040 of these?

General Atomics Avenger

and they can be fitted with AIM-9 Sidewinders and AIM-92 Stingers air-to-air missiles so these aren't just bombtrucks.

CRX SiR · 07-31-2010, 08:07 PM

The Pred would be decent enough for the west and east coast for patrols, but it would just get eaten alive in a real Air to Air combat situation. Im also not so sure I wanna go with just UAV's that need satellites to opperate, simply because if the Chinese, Russians or Yanks get into a war with each other, some of the first things to destroyed will be the Satellites in the sky thus rendering our UAV fleet basically useless.

seakrait · 07-31-2010, 08:08 PM

Did you guys read about this? Hahaha...

Quote:

Canadian Wikipedia controversy
On 28 July 2010 the National Post newspaper reported that IP addresses registered to the Canadian Department of National Defence Defence Research Establishment Ottawa had been used on 20 and 21 July to try to remove text critical of the Canadian government's F-35 purchase from the Wikipedia article on the aircraft. Repeated attempts to remove the text and add insults to the opposition were made by three IP addresses at the establishment. Martin Champoux, DRDC Manager of Public Affairs indicated it was not part of a government campaign to eliminate criticism, stating, "It sounds to me like someone was freelancing. This is not behaviour we commonly condone." Champoux indicated organization IT specialists are attempting to track down the people responsible and that employees will be reminded about government regulations regarding personal computer use. On 31 July 2010 The Ottawa Citizen reported that the IP addresses responsible had been traced to CFB Cold Lake.[178][179]

Official Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff stated on 29 July 2010 that the Wikipedia incidents show the government has "something to hide". He added, "Instead of making the case for Canadians ... saying, 'this is why we need this plane,' they're playing these games with Wikipedia. If you can't prove this case straight up and you have to resort to these tricks, then there's something wrong with the very proposition."[180]

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton publicly said on 29 July 2010, "Attempting to expunge the realities of debate. I mean what the heck is going on here? We all knew [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper operated a controlling operation, but we didn't think he was willing to go so far as to snatch the words out of people's mouths and pretend they never were spoken. I hope that DND are simply disavowing this practice and will put a stop to it ASAP."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee...5_Lightning_II

belka · 07-31-2010, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRX SiR

I really wish the F-35 had supercruise (officially) with how big our nation is and how long it takes to get from our air bases to the arctic, that extra speed could make all the difference

Edit: Which jet would you like Canada to have? There is talk they are gonna make an export version of the F22 since the russians released their counterpart to the presses (T-50).

I personally think the Typhoon is a better plane for our country, but the F35 has really good potential so i still support the F35, even if i dont think 65 will be enough in the long run. If they do get the global hawk or another HALE to compliment the f-35 it will make it easier to patrol the coast and arctic, and 65 might be enough.

We don't need supercruise, that is what NORAD and satellite radar systems are for. We know the second a Russian bear or another bomber takes off from its FOL in Siberia. This gives our current fighters plenty of time to fly from their bases to the Arctic. The extra speed helps, sure, but it's not necessary.

I think we will never see an export F-22 version. It will cost way too much to convert and US congress will never approve it. We don't need the F-22 anyways, its a first-strike and air superiority fighter. Do you really want Canada to be part of a first-day invasion force, will the public support this?

First thing, there are no "patrols" of the arctic, fighters don't just fly around up there when there is no need. It costs A LOT to have fighters and support crew stationed up north. Jet fuel, supplies, etc needs to be flown up there. I think the F-35 is the best choice for Canada right now. The Typhoon is a European product, the JSF is American. We are much closer to the US in military ties than we are with the European nations, it only makes sense to get the JSF. I've heard that the Typhoon doesn't exactly have a great serviceability record...the avionics are a nightmare to maintain.

JD¹³ · 07-31-2010, 08:10 PM

I don't think the F22 will ever be exported, especially since it's production run is already on the way to being halted with the release of the F35. I also highly doubt the Russians will export their T-50 for the same reasons the Americans thus far haven't done so with the F22.

Which jet would I like Canada to have? From a realistic standpoint I think it'd be nice in the future if we complimented our current order of 65 F35's with an additional squadron of the STOVL version. They could be dedicated towards providing close air support for the Army and Navy (like the USMC Harrier and USAF A10) while still being able to whip up north at a moments notice if required. Additionally, attack helicopters. Some Longbow Apaches to escort all our new transport choppers and again, provide close air support for ground forces, would be welcomed I'm sure.

While we're dreaming, a permanent base on the west coast please. Either a massive upgrade to CFB Comox (doubt it because JTF-2 have their new base going in there) or a brand new state-of-the-art facility in either the Okanagan or northern BC would be perfect. A new base could ease the load on Portage, Moose Jaw, Cold Lake, and Bagotville: use the current F18's for training before sending new pilots to the F35's, more space for instructors and students, less backlog in the system, etc etc etc.

All the west coast ever hears about our armed forces is Navy related, I think the Army/Air Force needs a bigger presence out here. But like I said, while we're dreaming...

belka · 07-31-2010, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seakrait

how about we just buy 19 of these for the price of one F-35 Lightning II? that means that instead of the 65 F-35 Lightnings we're slated to purchase, we can get 1235 of these babies!

Kinda hard to intercept an airliner with a UAV.

seakrait · 07-31-2010, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRX SiR

The Pred would be decent enough for the west and east coast for patrols, but it would just get eaten alive in a real Air to Air combat situation.

That's why we also load up on lots and lots of these...

MIM-104 Patriot

and these...

Avenger Air Defense System

CRX SiR · 07-31-2010, 08:16 PM

But once Russia starts sending their t-50 stealth fighters on patrols up north, our radars are most likely not gonna pick them up until they are close or already too late. And no, we dont do much for air survailance yet other then the odd Aurora sweep, but I know canada is looking into buying long range high altitude UAVs for just that purpose, the whole arctic sovernty bit. Well not wanting canada to be part of the first day invasion force, and it being thrust apon us is two different things. It would be one thing if we were in Mexico's location south of the battle, but when your between the 2 nations at war and second largest country, odds are a lot of the fighting would take place on our soil, like it or not. And you do have a point with the Eurofighter having some maintenance issues, F-22 is even worse. Who knows how good/bad the F-35 will be.

seakrait · 07-31-2010, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by belka

Kinda hard to intercept an airliner with a UAV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_...nes_Flight_007

things could accidently happen. hahahah... okay, that was in bad taste.

CRX SiR · 07-31-2010, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD¹³

I don't think the F22 will ever be exported, especially since it's production run is already on the way to being halted with the release of the F35. I also highly doubt the Russians will export their T-50 for the same reasons the Americans thus far haven't done so with the F22.

Well the T-50 is being developed with India with the goal of each nation getting 200 and 600 more for export, and the US is keeping all the key pieces of the F-22 assembly line to potentially start the program up at a later administration if 187 jets ends up being not enough, so if it is started up again and non Nato countrys have 1000 T-50's, whats to say the US wouldnt open up the F-22 to Nato countries?

I like your thoughts on the Air base on the west coast. Only issue is that there is a big one just up north from BC in Alaska that makes it kind of pointless. But I love their being a JTF-2 presence on the west coast. So many great places to train that you just dont get in Ontario.