[johny]

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/canada/2010/07/30/14874251.html

OTTAWA - Canadian fighter jets scrambled to repel Russian bombers that made several attempts to probe Canadian airspace on Wednesday.

QMI Agency has learned that two CF-18s took off from CFB Bagotville to intercept two TU-95 long range bombers about 463 km east of Goose Bay, N.L.

Attempts by Russia to test Canadian airspace have been going on since 2007; military and intelligence analysts tell QMI Agency the frequency has been increasing since then, but one senior official described Wednesday's event as "not the usual s--t."

"The response as always was a rapid, effective deterrent," Defence Minister Peter MacKay told QMI Agency.

"They were in the buffer zone," said MacKay, stressing that although the planes did not enter Canada's sovereign airspace, the bombers did come inside the 300 nautical mile zone that Canada claims.

"They did not give us any advance notice," said MacKay, adding that NORAD fighter jets have intercepted between 12 and 18 Russian bombers per year since 2007. After the CF-18s made contact with the Russians the pilots shadowed them until the bombers turned northeast and headed out of Canadian airspace.

The TU-95 bomber, known as the Bear, is capable of carrying nuclear weapons and may have been loaded with warheads on this trip. One military analyst tells QMI Agency the Russians have been known to fly with nukes on board just to flex their muscle and prove to the world they are still a powerful country.

"We certainly weren't aware of what if any weapons were on board," said MacKay.

Canada is in a race with Russia and other Arctic nations to lay claim to the frozen territory that may hold untold treasures.

Geologists believe the Arctic shelf holds vast stores of oil, natural gas, diamonds, gold and minerals. A 2007 Russian intelligence report predicted that conflict with other Arctic nations is a distinct possibility, including military action "in a competition for resources." The United States, Norway, and Denmark (through Greenland) also lay claim to portions of the Arctic seabed based on their coastal waters.

China, which does not have an Arctic coast, has sent icebreakers and ships into the Arctic Ocean. A Chinese admiral said earlier this year since China has 20% of the world's population, they should have 20% of Arctic resources.

The incursion into Canadian airspace also comes as debate rages over whether Canada needs the next generation of fighter jets to replace the nearly 30-year-old CF 18s. The Harper government has committed to buying 65 F-35 stealth fighters at a cost of $9 billion. Critics have said such Cold War-type jets are no longer needed.

Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies tells QMI Agency the Canadian Air Force needs to upgrade its fleet now that Russia is upgrading its bombers.

"The mere fact that the Russians are building the next generation of bombers means that we need something or we need to accept that the Americans will do it for us," Huebert said.

"This is about a Russian military resurgence, the Russians asserting their authority in the north," military analyst Mercedes Stephenson told QMI Agency.

Stephenson says that after the Cold War ended the Russian military was in a shambles but the last few years have seen a lot of money poured into restoring past glories, particularly in the air force.

Asked if he was playing up this Russian incursion to boost support for the F-35 purchase, MacKay said no.

"Surely even the most cynical, partisan person would not suggest that we engineered the visit of a Russian bomber to boost support for our air force," said MacKay.

Previous Russian incursions into Canadian airspace

February 2009: Hours before U.S. President Barack Obama's big visit to Canada, two Russian bombers were intercepted just outside the Canadian Arctic.

Two Canadian CF-18s were dispatched to signal the Russian aircraft to turn back to its own airspace.



The Russians called Canada's reaction "a farce."

General Walter Natynczyk, the chief of the defence staff, said, at the time, sporadic incidences of Russian incursions had started in 2007 after many years of no activity.

August 2008: Canadian jets scrambled during a visit by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to Inuvik in the Arctic to intercept an aircraft nearing Canada's airspace.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Russians were unwilling to notify Canada of planned military flights nearing our airspace.

September 2007: Russians boasted that two of their Tu-95 bombers flew along the coasts of Alaska and Canada and returned via the North Pole during a 17-hour flight. They said their flight was accompanied by NATO planes.

[johny]

I don't know what's scarier. that russia keeps sending bombers. or china is now claiming 20% of the artic when they are no where near it.

[turb0fr3ak]

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/tu95_v.jpg
that can do damage!

[G-spec]

now I understand why the government just spent 9 billion those F-35's.

or maybe this is a fake report to justify spending 9 billion on jets.

you never know with the government

bottom line is, I don't trust dudes with $5 haircuts


http://www.nndb.com/people/373/000111040/stephen-harper-1.jpg

[bloodmack]

now I understand why the government just spent 9 billion those F-35's.

or maybe this is a fake report to justify spending 9 billion on jets.

you never know with the government

paranoid much? lol

[twitchyzero]

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/canada/2010/07/30/14874251.html

China, which does not have an Arctic coast, has sent icebreakers and ships into the Arctic Ocean. A Chinese admiral said earlier this year since China has 20% of the world's population, they should have 20% of Arctic resources.


HAHAHA what a tool. Chinese arrogance at its best.

China makes 90% of the world's counterfeit merchandise..maybe we should send their shit back too. China's population is 20% of the world...thus they should've won 1/5th of the FIFA World Cup.
:eek5x:

[belka]

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/tu95_v.jpg
that can do damage!

No, it can't.

[dhari]

I never really thought buying new jet fighters was a justified purchase but I guess this is the exact reasoning behind it.
Canada has to defend the arctic. I'm thinking that we have to ask USA for some help though lol

[Ludepower]

I'm sick of russias mind games...Let's put a public threat to Russia...if your over one inch within our airspace...well shoot u down.

I don't care how big they are...with our big brothers from america and NATO...we ain't going to be pushed around.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[belka]

I'm sick of russias mind games...Let's put a public threat to Russia...if your over one inch within our airspace...well shoot u down.

I don't care how big they are...with our big brothers from america and NATO...we ain't going to be pushed around.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Yes, lets start WWIII over nothing, great idea.

[orange7]

^
The US wants a bigger piece of the Artic.

[q0192837465]

I never really thought buying new jet fighters was a justified purchase but I guess this is the exact reasoning behind it.
Canada has to defend the arctic. I'm thinking that we have to ask USA for some help though lol

no doubt we need help from US if a full scale war breaks out. Just like if a bunch of robbers r thinking of robbing ur house. There's no way having a dog can prevent it if they'r determined. But it'll give them something to think about if u to have a German shepard guarding your doors instead of a useless chihuahua.

[BaoXu]

"They were in the buffer zone," said MacKay, stressing that although the planes did not enter Canada's sovereign airspace, the bombers did come inside the 300 nautical mile zone that Canada claims.

just your local newspaper doing fear mongering. it sells papers.

[BaoXu]

I'm sick of russias mind games...Let's put a public threat to Russia...if your over one inch within our airspace...well shoot u down.

I don't care how big they are...with our big brothers from america and NATO...we ain't going to be pushed around.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

last time i checked, america and NATO were ones pushing people around.

[nns]

now I understand why the government just spent 9 billion those F-35's.

or maybe this is a fake report to justify spending 9 billion on jets.

you never know with the government

bottom line is, I don't trust dudes with $5 haircuts


http://www.nndb.com/people/373/000111040/stephen-harper-1.jpg

I'm sure the Canadian government doesn't lose sleep over the fact that they haven't secured the trust of people like "G-spec" of RS and his illustrious opinion on world affairs.

[CP.AR]

we have a place in Canada called "bagotville"?

really?
bagotville?

[cressydrift]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Raptor_and_TU-95.jpg/800px-Raptor_and_TU-95.jpg

Older pic, but I am sure it was the exact same thing. Good thing some raptors are stationed in Alaska!

Found some more sweet pics,

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9009/31446521.jpg

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1126/tu95km0015hr.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/topcover/blog/images/f-15-bear_thumb.jpg

http://avionique.free.fr/IMG/jpg/TU-95-2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Tu-95_escorted_by_an_F-14.jpg

http://www.red-stars.org/IMG/jpg/070928_Tu-95_F-15_Alaska.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/2311210354_60d83f268b.jpg?v=0

[tiger_handheld]

^ noob question, how are these sky shots taken?

[ShadowBun]

isnt it by another plane?
they have these special planes that capture images

[124Y]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QoKe6JIXw

[belka]

^ noob question, how are these sky shots taken?

Those missions never have only one jet going out. It's usually two or more.

[TomBox_N]

I'm sure pictures need to be taken as evidence. The person scrambling the fighter jet has to answer for his decisions.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[JD¹³]

Nice pics cressydrift! Cool seeing the old F14 alongside the Bear. What nationality is that Eurofighter? I can't make out the markings on my iPhone.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[nack]

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

[SkinnyPupp]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Tu-95_escorted_by_an_F-14.jpg


http://fromtheskies.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/topgun.jpg

:thumbsup:

[cressydrift]

Since we are on the topic of planes...

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/afghan_07_30_10/a01_4684k358.jpg

[twitchyzero]

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/j10g.jpg
http://retrothing.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/27/avroarrow2.jpg
http://www.russian-victories.ru/mig_29_b.jpg

[Onassis]

Modern Warfare 2 anyone ?

[jimmerz]

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

[JD¹³]

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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Super_Hornet_on_flight_deck.jpg/800px-Super_Hornet_on_flight_deck.jpg

[Qmx323]

^ I dunno lol

[jimmerz]

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

[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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[belka]

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]

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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

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.

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.

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


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/FA-18_Super_Hornets_of_Strike_Fighter_Squadron_31_fly _patrol%2C_Afghanistan%2C_December_15%2C_2008.jpg

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]

http://www.m360ltd.co.uk/preview/step/webimages/socialinvestment/kid-box-plane.jpg

[J____]

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

[belka]

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? :thumbsup:

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]

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]

What nationality is that Eurofighter? I can't make out the markings on my iPhone.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Royal Air Force

[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! :o

MQ-9 Reaper
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/MQ-9_Reaper_in_flight_%282007%29.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/MQ-1_Predator_controls_2007-08-07.jpg

or maybe 1040 of these?

General Atomics Avenger
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/Predator-c-avenger-5.jpg

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]

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]

Did you guys read about this? Hahaha...

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/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

[belka]

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]

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]

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! :o

Kinda hard to intercept an airliner with a UAV. :D

[seakrait]

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
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Patriot_missile_launch_b.jpg

and these...

Avenger Air Defense System
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Avenger_Stinger_Missile.JPEG

[CRX SiR]

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]

Kinda hard to intercept an airliner with a UAV. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

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

[CRX SiR]

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.

[seakrait]

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/wikipedia/en/1/10/Pak_fa_in_flight.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Pak_fa.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/PAK-FA_diagram.jpg

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

[CRX SiR]

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

[belka]

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.

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.

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.

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

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810111--bomb-threat-forces-fighter-jets-to-escort-plane-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.

[tofu1413]

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

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.

[seakrait]

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.

[CRX SiR]

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/article/810111--bomb-threat-forces-fighter-jets-to-escort-plane-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.



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.

[tofu1413]

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.


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

[belka]

Escorting a plane due to a bomb threat can be done by just about any plane with armament that can take it down

Such as?

[CRX SiR]

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)

[belka]

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.

[CRX SiR]

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. :)

[belka]

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.......

[CRX SiR]

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.

[goo3]

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

i mean if it was a real bomb run

[JD¹³]

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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[nack]

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

i mean if it was a real bomb run

fighter escort

[belka]

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.

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.

fighter escort

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---Air/McDonnell-Douglas-F-15E/1509310/L/

[cressydrift]

The pic that belka put in his link...

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/0/1/3/1509310.jpg

[seakrait]

+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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pWhKHrz28k



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/2009/10/f16iinflightso.jpg

[cressydrift]

^ Awesome pic!!

Since we are talking favorites now...

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/sr-71.thumbnail.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/1/8/0722816.jpg

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

[cressydrift]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N31eEXjNAUU&feature=related

Fuck soo good.

[Bouncing Bettys]

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

[Meowjin]

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

[belka]

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.

[ApexSeal]

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! :o

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.

or 1 of these!

http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20080505/300.ironman.050508.jpg

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

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

[CRX SiR]

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.


I totally agree with you. But doing some move like that wouldnt be the first time the Canadian gov't would pull some move like that. I really hope the end costs for the F35 go down and 10 years from now we buy an extra 20-30 to boost our numbers. 65 total jets to protect the skys of this nation seems so little. Specially when some will be trainers, some will be lost due to accidents or action, and simply wearing out over time.

[belka]

I totally agree with you. But doing some move like that wouldnt be the first time the Canadian gov't would pull some move like that. I really hope the end costs for the F35 go down and 10 years from now we buy an extra 20-30 to boost our numbers. 65 total jets to protect the skys of this nation seems so little. Specially when some will be trainers, some will be lost due to accidents or action, and simply wearing out over time.

You have to remember that we don't need jets flying around all the time up north, let NORAD identify and track the targets. Also, the government isn't getting these things to fly airshows and tool around the empty northern airspace, they bought them for overseas ops.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/tories-and-grits-are-as-one-on-defence-policy/article1660646/

Although the F-35’s ability to defend Canadian airspace was surely taken into account, that is not what makes this plane especially attractive to the government and the air force. The value of the F-35 is that it will permit Canada to take part in multinational air operations overseas for decades to come. Put simply, in buying these aircraft, the government will ensure that Canada can play a visible role in future allied air campaigns across the world.

Once we receive our initial 65, that number will probably be reevaluated. But you have to remember that even with our current fighters, we are far below our optimal manning strength for pilots and ground crew. I doubt these will come as trainers since they are single-seat only. All the crew, flight and ground, will be done at Eglin AFB in Florida.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/06/airforce_jsf_062010w/

I'm getting my base tan ready. :D