Thread: Canada Goes Tankless

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.

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.

Knew that, they have a British style uniform.

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.

Would not the CF Air Command kept some aircraft in reserve, tasked to continental air defense?

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.

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.

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

Which the Indian Air Force and (by extension) the Pakistani Air Force are soon going to find out.

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.

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.

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.

Colonel
What would be the minimum safe distance to escape EMP effects?

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.