[QUOTE=PC_Paul;32131944]
BTW-Submarines can be extremely valuable in the Arctic environment.[/QUOTE]
LA class subs (688i, not the early 1970's ones) are even reinforced to surface through thick ice plates! We have you covered! :P
[QUOTE=GunFox;32131083]They sit next to the world's largest arms dealer and they buy from the Brits.
In related news, the American submarine from the era, the Los Angeles class, remains in service. 43 strong.
Seriously. We do a lot of stupid shit, but when it comes to weapons BUY THEM FROM US. The war mongering society that virtually all of western civilization relies on to remain stupidly overpowered militarily, [I]might just know how to make weapons.[/I][/QUOTE]
Are you kidding.
The US still buys and uses shit from us. BAE motherfucker.
When it comes to making tanks and armoured shit, we brits are the best.
[QUOTE=Novistador;32130162]Yeah I live in Halifax ,Nova Scotia where they have three of the submarines stored,
They just sit there all three right next to each other doing absolutely nothing all year long, and are so rusty that you can see the rust when your going across the bridge to the other side of the harbour.
Really makes you wonder why they even bought them from the British if they were just going to have them sit there and rot.[/QUOTE]
Actually one of them is being worked upon now. You can no longer see it now as it is underneath a temporary covering/building to protect it from the elements and prying eyes.
The Canadian navy is actually going to be getting a bit bigger over the next few years. We have Harper's new arctic patrol ships on the way along with 2-3 joint support ships. We are also building 9 patrol There even was a bit of talk about acquiring
[QUOTE=Untouch;32129101]I'm having trouble telling if you're trolling or just genuine stupid.[/QUOTE]
it's funny how everyone makes "Canada has a military?" style jokes and gets funnies, but I make a joke and I get dumbs.
If you guys don't like me, [b]how about just fucking saying so.[/b]
[QUOTE=GunFox;32129289]The Canadians don't have one of those either.
Probably because they sit next to the strongest air force on the planet, but still it seems odd.[/QUOTE]
We are buying 65 F-35 fighters
[QUOTE=lavacano;32133079]it's funny how everyone makes "Canada has a military?" style jokes and gets funnies, but I make a joke and I get dumbs.
If you guys don't like me, [b]how about just fucking saying so.[/b][/QUOTE]
I don't like you.
[QUOTE=fskman;32123491]sending lumberjacks to do a maniacs job[/QUOTE]
After re-reading the thread and seeing this I remembered seeing a picture long time ago.
[img]http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/8714dd4a-1a72-40e6-93c1-4e1088f23b10.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=wallyroberto_2;32133134]We are buying 65 F-35 fighters
[/QUOTE]
I am still do not think that those aircraft are the ones we should be getting.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;32132893]Are you kidding.
The US still buys and uses shit from us. BAE motherfucker.
When it comes to making tanks and armoured shit, we brits are the best.[/QUOTE]
The US works with BAE systems, which is actually based in the US and is comprised of US companies. Furthermore, we buy electronics packages from them. They don't actually produce useful weapons.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32133393]The US works with BAE systems, which is actually based in the US and is comprised of US companies. Furthermore, we buy electronics packages from them. They don't actually produce useful weapons.[/QUOTE]
The LA class sub is nice and all but I doubt we would have enough Canadian Forces navy members to man multiple subs, maybe only 1-2 subs but that would still be nice. But hey were living beside the US, We should be focused on our Army and Airforce.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;32133183]After re-reading the thread and seeing this I remembered seeing a picture long time ago.
[img]http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/8714dd4a-1a72-40e6-93c1-4e1088f23b10.jpg[/img]
I am still do not think that those aircraft are the ones we should be getting.[/QUOTE]
I read somewhere out of all the aircraft's the F-35 would fly the longest in the Arctic.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32133393]The US works with BAE systems, which is actually based in the US and is comprised of US companies. Furthermore, we buy electronics packages from them. They don't actually produce useful weapons.[/QUOTE]
The North American [i]subsidiary[/i] BAE Systems Inc. is based in the U.S. BAE Systems itself is based in the [i]UK[/i].
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;32133183]
I am still do not think that those aircraft are the ones we should be getting.[/QUOTE]
With one engine they're pretty much fucked if the engine goes down during a long range arctic patrol. Stealth isn't exactly needed these days either. The Eurofighter probably would have been better.
Anything's better than the wasteful F-35.
[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]
Thank the gods of the military-industrial complex that we're all spending ten times as much on defense as them dangerous Commies are.
[QUOTE=lavacano;32133079]it's funny how everyone makes "Canada has a military?" style jokes and gets funnies, but I make a joke and I get dumbs.
If you guys don't like me, [b]how about just fucking saying so.[/b][/QUOTE]
Facepunch isn't about you, nobody has a grudge against you, don't try to make yourself the dramatic center of attention.
I wonder if they could just contract Electric Boat here in CT.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32133393]The US works with BAE systems, which is actually based in the US and is comprised of US companies. Furthermore, we buy electronics packages from them. They don't actually produce useful weapons.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect, BAE Systems build the Euro fighter typhoon, arguably the best jet in existence... and the Astute class submarine, which is without a doubt the best submarine to currently sail the oceans... furthermore BAE is a British company, the name stands for British Aerospace and Defence. It's just that BAE have also purchased defence contractors in the US.
[quote] BAE Systems build the Euro fighter typhoon[/quote]
It is really maneuverable. That is about the entirety of the benefits of the Typhoon.
It is expensive as hell, has virtually no air to ground capabilities, and relies on maneuverability to accomplish its objective in an environment where maneuverability is a last resort, not a first defense. Not to mention the countries using them almost universally are in desperate need of a multirole fighter or a close air support aircraft far more than they need an air supremacy aircraft.
Maneuverability is important for wild weasel sorties, but in a dogfight you want the other guy to be dead before he even knows you are there. Which is exactly why all of the other gen 5 fighters are stealth based. The missiles being airborne before you are even noticed is the name of the game. Japan, China, India, the United States, Russia, and South Korea all came to that conclusion.
[QUOTE=Flyboi;32134559]
and the Astute class submarine, which is without a doubt the best submarine to currently sail the oceans.[/quote]
Actually that title is probably better suited to the older Seawolf.
Astute can't load harpoon missiles and has no vertical launch tubes. It also can't dive as deep as its seawolf counterpart.
The Seawolf wasn't replaced because it didn't work. It was replace because they are ridiculously expensive to produce. They are faster, run deeper, better armed, and better armored than the Astutes. The fight for best sub is between the US and Russia. The Astute and Virginia class subs are both budget subs. Both excellent subs, but they are not intended to be cutting edge.
[quote].. furthermore BAE is a British company, the name stands for British Aerospace and Defence. It's just that BAE have also purchased defence contractors in the US.[/QUOTE]
I am aware of the name, but DoD regulations prevent them from operating as a British company. They can't even share information freely with their parent organization and are staffed overwhelmingly by Americans.
[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;32134206]With one engine they're pretty much fucked if the engine goes down during a long range arctic patrol. Stealth isn't exactly needed these days either. The Eurofighter probably would have been better.[/QUOTE]
An F/A-18F would have been better. You can buy two for the price of one typhoon, shoot down virtually any threat you are reasonably going to encounter, benefit from decades upon decades of fine tuning, actually attack ground targets with proper air to surface missiles, launch from a carrier, outfit them with the growler package for electronic warfare, use them as short range tankers, all while carrying more munitions to the party than a typhoon.
Truthfully, for Canada's needs we would be better off with the Super Hornet than the CF-35. It can do a mix of air to air and ground to ground, is not overly expensive, possesses two engines, has a somewhat smaller RCS than many other fourth generation fighters, a lot of parts are similar to the normal hornet easing transition of aircraft, better thrust to weight ratio, slightly better range and the ability to use the buddy tank system.
[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]
The other thing is that Canada does not need a Stealth fighter, nor does it have the capability to use them effectively. For that we would need an AWACS, or a fighter capable of operating as a command and control type bird (the F-35 is not one of these) as using radar alerts the enemy to your location. Stealth also only really works when you are carrying a internal payload. The aircraft itself may be stealthy, but the missiles/bombs are currently not. Also stealth may become less useful than it is now thanks to better and better infra-red search and track systems coming into use.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;32135699]Truthfully, for Canada's needs we would be better off with the Super Hornet than the CF-35. It can do a mix of air to air and ground to ground, is not overly expensive, possesses two engines, has a somewhat smaller RCS than many other fourth generation fighters, a lot of parts are similar to the normal hornet easing transition of aircraft, better thrust to weight ratio, slightly better range and the ability to use the buddy tank system.[/QUOTE]
It would also cost a tiny fraction of the money to retrain all the pilots. The CF-18's could be retained as trainers and reserve aircraft.
Frankly the US should be doing exactly the same thing. Instead of producing a second gen 5 fighter, just make another major overhaul of the F-18 design.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;32132893]Are you kidding.
The US still buys and uses shit from us. BAE motherfucker.
When it comes to making tanks and armoured shit, we brits are the best.[/QUOTE]
It's almost a personal preferance really, the Abrams and Challenger 2 are evenly matched. It would all depend on the crew's reaction time if they went against each other.
Double post.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;32135843]It's almost a personal preferance really, the Abrams and Challenger 2 are evenly matched. It would all depend on the crew's reaction time if they went against each other.[/QUOTE]
For the time being the Challenger could even win if the range was long enough. The rifled barrel is crazy accurate.
That said, the rifling on the Challenger's barrel is a huge limitation in terms of what it can fire. The Abrams can field 120mm shot shells filled with tungsten balls. It is dirt cheap to use, and will pretty much level most structures when used at close range. In terms of day to day functionality right now, this is extremely handy.
A more interesting, but often forgotten, reason to use smoothbore cannons is it doesn't limit you to launching shells. The US originally tried this with the MGM-51, but the Sheridan light tank, with its aluminum armor, turned out to not be all that useful. Basically, with a smooth bore cannon, you can fire missiles. Currently labeled the XM1111, there is a missile designed to be launched out of the cannon of the Abrams in the works. It should actually be pretty near production right about now. That will let the Abrams target and destroy things that it can't even see. A handy feature given that US Abrams work in constant close connection to Kiowa scout helicopters. The Kiowas and the Abrams even run on the same fuel, making logistics easy.
Being able to launch missiles would considerably change the battlefield for tanks. Particularly if they can launch missiles with a top attack profile.
---
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;32132928]The Canadian navy is actually going to be getting a bit bigger over the next few years. We have Harper's new arctic patrol ships on the way along with 2-3 joint support ships. We are also building 9 patrol There even was a bit of talk about acquiring[/QUOTE]Last I heard, the Harper government decided 'as a cost saving measure' to reduce the amount of weapons on those arctic patrol craft to a deck gun, and not include a reinforced bow for ice breaking. And we're only getting three to patrol the whole arctic.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32136253]For the time being the Challenger could even win if the range was long enough. The rifled barrel is crazy accurate.
That said, the rifling on the Challenger's barrel is a huge limitation in terms of what it can fire. The Abrams can field 120mm shot shells filled with tungsten balls. It is dirt cheap to use, and will pretty much level most structures when used at close range. In terms of day to day functionality right now, this is extremely handy.
A more interesting, but often forgotten, reason to use smoothbore cannons is it doesn't limit you to launching shells. The US originally tried this with the MGM-51, but the Sheridan light tank, with its aluminum armor, turned out to not be all that useful. Basically, with a smooth bore cannon, you can fire missiles. Currently labeled the XM1111, there is a missile designed to be launched out of the cannon of the Abrams in the works. It should actually be pretty near production right about now. That will let the Abrams target and destroy things that it can't even see. A handy feature given that US Abrams work in constant close connection to Kiowa scout helicopters. The Kiowas and the Abrams even run on the same fuel, making logistics easy.
Being able to launch missiles would considerably change the battlefield for tanks. Particularly if they can launch missiles with a top attack profile.[/QUOTE]
The Merkava and some Russian IFVs can already launch missiles from their main guns.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;32141069]The Merkava and some Russian IFVs can already launch missiles from their main guns.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the Russians can actually even use them in their T-90's. They do a good job developing their armored vehicles.
russia is best country
Canada has a military?
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;32151407]Canada has a military?[/QUOTE]
There's a country named Canada?
So [I]that's[/I] where Canadian bacon comes from!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
