And for those that don't know what the hell a "T-50" is 'cuz "aren't all Russian jets called 'MiGs'?"

Sukhoi PAK FA
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._in_flight.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../24/Pak_fa.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...FA_diagram.jpg

courtesy of where else? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-50

Good Call. Im curious, does anyone else here read Combat Aircraft, Airforces, or CDR (Candian Defense Review) magazines?

You will never see a T-50 do a long-range flight close to Canadian Airspace. Just look up the range of the T-50 and the distance between the closest Russian base and the edge of Canadian airspace. It isn't exactly next-door. When you send a fighter jet or squadron of fighter jets toward a country it's not for patrol.

Not exactly. We still need fighters on the west coast...remember this?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/a...e-to-vancouver

We had fighters in CFB Comox back in the day, but the hippies didn't like them making all the noise and polluting the atmosphere, so they eventually moved to Alberta. I would love a posting to Comox with the fighters, but it would never happen.

production models would be named after their manufacturers.

eg: MIG, SU, Yak, Tu, An


i think T stands for an experimental or developmental aircraft.


cept the SU-47 though. no idea why they didnt name it something else.

sometimes, it's just difficult to understand why the russians do what they do. :p

i do think this Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 is a pretty good looking plane. love the canted rudders (V-tail). reminds me so much of the YF-23 (the Northrop prototype that lost out to the YF-22 which eventually became the F-22 Raptor) from 1991.

Escorting a plane due to a bomb threat can be done by just about any plane with armament that can take it down, doesnt mean we need to put a full compliment of F-18's at Comox, as much as I would love to have fighter jets next door to Campbell River again.

And you never know about the T-50. You can bet when they are finally become part of the fleet, the ruskies are gonna wanna show them off and do "checks" to see how they fair against the F-22's stationed around alaska and such, not to mention Russia is supose to be developing a new bomber here shortly. Id rather have a fighter jet approaching our airspace then a bomber with a real nuke on board, but thats just me.

agreed. i actually like the YF 23 more than the YF22 / F22. its more... futuristic of a design. even more advanced than the F22. not to mention, Black widow sounds better than Raptor. haha

http://aircraft-list.com/keywords/YF-23/YF-23_1.jpg

Such as?

A UAS with Air to Air? 65 jets is gonna be spread pretty thin on a nation as big as ours, were gonna need some sort of support aircraft to compliment them, and a UAS (UAV) with ordinance that can patrol our coast and do odd jobs like escorts and such could be stationed at Comox one day in the future.

Edit: Some nations run more then one type of fighter jet. Do you see canada running F-35's and maybe like 20-40 Super hornets to compliment them? Then the Super Hornets could be used for missions over seas and help out with local sovernty when not stationed abroad? Ya, its more expensive with logistics and mainentance, but Im sure Canada would much rather send Super Hornets overseas for missions then the expensive F-35 (Like what the US does with its F-22's)

A multi-fighter force will never again happen in Canada, well not for the next while anyways. The costs are just too great for one, second is we just don't have the manpower to fly, maintain, support two new platforms of fighters. We have a hard time as it is supporting the jets we have now, nevermind two airframes.

We already operate the Heron in Afganistan and the F-18 here, And the Heron can have ordanance, so doesnt that make us a multi-fighter force? Im not trying to be smart, Im actually quite enjoying talking about this stuff, and I am appreciating your views on this, and a lot of what you say I agree with, I just wanna think about what if's and such. :)

I wouldn't really consider the Heron a fighter in the sense of a multi-fighter force. It's not used in Afghan to drop any weapons, only for surveillance and intelligence gathering. Same can be said for our CF18's.......

What about doing the norm of Canada's past and continuing to run some of the better F-18 air frames with life extensions, possibly picking up some used ones from the US Navy and life extending them also to compliment the F-35's? Then its not 2 new airframes, only one. And ya i agree the heron at the moment isnt a fighter, but it wouldnt take that long to train the operators to drop ordanance with it and then it becomes a CAS plane, with the F-35 looking after the skies.

do bombers usually go with air support or do they go alone?

i mean if it was a real bomb run

Air support 100% I would think, unless they were either stealth like the B2 or highspeed / high altitude like the B1.

Something like a Bear would be plucked from the sky pretty easily on it's own.
Posted via RS Mobile

fighter escort

Our current 18's already had their life extensions through center barrel replacements, and those C/D model US Navy Hornets aren't in the best of shape either. I don't think there are too many aircraft carriers that still utilize the C/D model, nevermind the A/B. It's time to move on, there is no point spending all that money maintaining, operating and upgrading our current fighter fleet with new electronics when you can get the F-35. It has systems that the F-18 will never be adapted to carry. It's like replacing the engine, wiring, etc every 5 years into the same body of a car, eventually the body will rust away and fall apart around all that new stuff.

Unless you fly the F-15E or other multi-roll fighters, which can go down and bomb the hell out of a target then engage any air threats. :thumbsup:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA--...15E/1509310/L/

The pic that belka put in his link...

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../3/1509310.jpg

+1 on the F-15E. love the darker colouration and its all-round capabilities of air-to-ground and air-to-air. just too bad that it's over 24 years old...

there's also the F-15 SE (Silent Eagle). this is the proposed stealth version of the F-15.




BUT my most favourite fighter growing up as a kid was always the F-16 Fighting Falcon. "Viper!" Love it. Fighter AND bombtruck.

F-16IN (Block 60). "Super Viper"
http://samapan.files.wordpress.com/2...inflightso.jpg

^ Awesome pic!!

Since we are talking favorites now...

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-co....thumbnail.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../8/0722816.jpg

Any thing that goes 2284 mph + is good in my books:) Try shooting that down.

Fuck soo good.

A-10 Tank Killer was one of my favourite games for a reason
http://www.a-10.org/photos/Photos89370/a-10form.jpg
http://www.a-10.org/photos/Photos29541/A10_42.jpg

did most people miss the fact that in the article russia equips the bombers with nukes?

So? What difference if it's launched from a Bear, Jackel or ICBM, the results are the same. This is nothing more than the Russians waving their cocks with their useless bombers that will get shot down before they get anywhere near the coastline in a real conflict. I'm not worried about their decrepit Air Force and Navy.

or 1 of these!

http://images.eonline.com/eol_images...man.050508.jpg

....or 52,000 of these...

http://www.geekologie.com/2008/05/19/ironman-suit.jpg