+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 157

Thread: Canada Goes Tankless

  1. #16
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,615
    Country: United States
    I suppose that's a bloody good idea :8

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 03
    Location
    Long Island, New York, USA
    Posts
    2,726
    Country: United States
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    No, we're not getting rid of our tanks. We're not buying new ones which essentially means that we'll drive our current ones into the ground before we decide what to do with SABRE Force. You're looking at a decision point around 2012-2015.



    That is a police matter, not a military matter. The military does not have jurisdiction in finding, catching, and prosecuting terrorists on Canadian soil. We'll re-enforce law-enforcement as a matter of law but cannot initiate action.



    Well, get it right. We're riding around in dog sleds with hockey sticks going from igloo to igloo, trying to stay fucking warm by eating beaver and going "EHHHHH!!!!!!!!"

    With apologies to any ladies out there for those sexist

    A bit off topic, but arent the Mounties part of the Canadian military?
    remarks.

    I wonder how many of you guys get it.

  3. #18
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,042
    Country: Canada
    The RCMP is not part of the military, they are our equivalent of the FBI. The mountie does not wear red or ride a horse except as part of a cermemony. They drive RCMP cars and wear police-like uniforms. Just to dispel to the steriotype.

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 03
    Location
    Long Island, New York, USA
    Posts
    2,726
    Country: United States
    Knew that, they have a British style uniform.

  5. #20
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    The defence of Canada is the responsibility of the Canadian Forces. In practise, this has been assumed by the CF Air Command and Maritime Command. Land Force remains expeditionary in nature.

    During the Cold War, this means that Canada was responsible for stopping the 1st Soviet bomber wave and ASW duties in the North Atlantic.

    In practise, this meant that AC would be wiped out after the first wave and would have to rely on the USAF and the USANG for further air interdiction.

    Land Force's job is to take the fight over to outside Canada. Hence, the reliance on tanks as the SABRE Force.
    Chimo

  6. #21
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,615
    Country: United States
    Would not the CF Air Command kept some aircraft in reserve, tasked to continental air defense?

  7. #22
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    Originally posted by TopHatter
    Would not the CF Air Command kept some aircraft in reserve, tasked to continental air defense?
    Some but those would be integrated with American planes as they move north to Canadian air strips but AC as a command would be decimated. You can only do so much with 60-80 fighters (we had two squadrons in Germany) and you have to have allowance for maintenance issues.

    Against this, we were expecting a couple hundred Bears and Backfires along with their escourts in two to four waves. Numbers ain't there.
    Chimo

  8. #23
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    10,941
    Country: Israel
    Aerial guerilla could be costly. AIM-120C, AIM-9M, and AIM-54C are all fire-and-forget. Use continental or airborne radar via datalink. Have fighters turn on radar to launch from a safe distance, than turn around and refuel/reload. If done properly, each fighter could take out at least three or four enemy planes.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  9. #24
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,615
    Country: United States
    Good ideas, but remember that the Phoenix could be carried by but a single aircraft type, the Tomcat. Also, during the cold war, those BVR missiles like the AMRAAM didnt really exist in huge numbers and I don't if the CF has them to this day. The Sidewinder is more of a dogfight missile, something that you use to shoot the guy right in front of you, relatively speaking.
    However, you make a good point, you could possibly bushwhack an opposing force when you have AWACS and they don't
    Having an AWACS behind you is a huge force multiplier

  10. #25
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    10,941
    Country: Israel
    Which the Indian Air Force and (by extension) the Pakistani Air Force are soon going to find out.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  11. #26
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    Gentlemen,

    You have to remember the time frame. AWACS doctrine was in its infancy and the idea of strike packages was just evolving. Most birdbrains at the time were still thinking in terms of fighter sweeps and force interdiction.

    So, what you're currently talking about in terms of C4ISR would be beyond the thinking and capabilities of all AFs, including teh US, at the time.

    However, Canada did have a BVR capability in the CF-101 Voodoo - GENIE AAM combination. This was at a time when the CF had over 200 planes (CF-101 Voodoo, CF-105 Starfighter, CF-5 Freedom Fighter) and a rundamentary C4ISR in the DEW (Distant Early Warning) Line.

    This was all abandonned when the CF-18 Hornet came on line in an attempt to reduce cost while maintaining operational efficiency and to adhere to then Prime Minister Trudeau's non-nuclear pledge.

    The GENIE was nuclear tipped. Yes, Canada was a nuclear power - using American designed and sometimes American produced nukes.
    Chimo

  12. #27
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    10,941
    Country: Israel
    Sometimes I wonder how bad the idea of nuclear-tipped AAM's is. Used over the Atlantic against a force of Bears, Blackjacks, Flankers and Fulcrums. One small nuke, all gone. Killed or at the very least mission kill.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  13. #28
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    A very bad idea. First, it's a "Fire and Runaway" weapon. You don't want to be looking at the blast, let alone fly into that mushroom cloud. Meaning that once you fire, you have to break formation and it would take time to co-ordinate yourself again to take care of whatever suviviors there were.

    Second, you wouldn't be guarrantee more than 1 or 2 bomber kills since they would be flying at distance away from one another.

    Sidewinders and Sparrows in a dedicated strike formation proved to be a more effective package.
    Chimo

  14. #29
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,615
    Country: United States
    Colonel
    What would be the minimum safe distance to escape EMP effects?

  15. #30
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    These are warplanes designed to take EMP pulses. Crew safety is more a factor than EMP distance. GENIE's weapon release point is believed to be 50 miles. Actual release data is still classified.
    Chimo

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Be Proud Canada
    By Amled in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 15 Jul 08,, 07:11
  2. U.S. had secret 1930 plan to invade Canada
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 28 Oct 06,, 22:12
  3. Unarmed and Defenseless in Canada
    By Shek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 22 Jan 06,, 04:18
  4. MiG-29 “FALCON HUNTER” Exclusive : THE WINNER
    By Mr_Vaastu in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 20 May 05,, 06:36
  5. E.U. Dependence Theory: Blame Canada
    By Leader in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20 Jan 05,, 03:14

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts