|
For those who think Canada doesn't need an airforce: (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| zokissima |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
fear mongering at its best  |
+1
Crazy to think of Canada setting up surface-to-air missle batteries. Along with that, we should also start mass conscription and mobilization. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by exraver
 |
:haha: |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
fear mongering at its best |
EXACTLY, I hope people arent actually that stupid to believe this . |
|
|
| exraver |
Russian Tu-95, introduced in 1956, can be loaded with 16 cruise missiles X-55, it has a range of up to 3,000 km and can carry conventional or nuclear warheads.
When SHTF, these bombers won't be even close to US/Canadian airspace, their purpose is to drop cruise missiles and get the hell out. |
|
|
| Elendil |
| quote: | Originally posted by exraver
Russian Tu-95, introduced in 1956, can be loaded with 16 cruise missiles X-55, it has a range of up to 3,000 km and can carry conventional or nuclear warheads.
When SHTF, these bombers won't be even close to US/Canadian airspace, their purpose is to drop cruise missiles and get the hell out. |
Indeed... the years of cluster dropping high explosives from lumbering bombers is long ended.
That being said, these are clearly provocative acts aimed at testing resolve and public will to repel them. I have little doubt that if we did not strongly respond to such provocations, it would be an open invitation to move in and set up shop. It is important to respond to provocation with a measured but firm hand. Of course, this will be played up to force the F-35 agenda. Myself having little first hand aeronautical expertise, I leave those decisions to the knowledgeable and simply hope that performance and efficiency plays as much of a role as possible (though my innate cynic is already sighing.) |
|
|
| exraver |
These guys in Tu-95 actually broke world record yesterday for a planes of this class.
43 hours in the air, crossed 3 oceans, 4 air refuellings and covered 30.000 km distance. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by exraver
These guys in Tu-95 actually broke world record yesterday for a planes of this class.
43 hours in the air, crossed 3 oceans, 4 air refuellings and covered 30.000 km distance. |
Indeed. In defense of these Russian military moves, I have a point to add. Russia's bombers by far have the world's longest range, capable of flying large distances and because the routes change - its inevitable that those planes will approach NATO's borders (considering that NATO is encroaching all around Russia).
Russia is forbidden by European arms convention treaty to operate heavy weaponry (ballistic missiles, a cap on number of tanks, etc) within its European part of the country. So the planes most often fly to the East and North.
Canada doesnt need F-35's to "greet" these planes, even a plane from 1960s is sufficient enough - just as long as Canada has a plane it can fly. It will never fire at the Russian bombers, because that can result in a new MASSIVE war. Hence no need to upgrade weapons to make the situation more dangerous. If Russians breach the airspace boundary then Canada can take it to UN and humiliate the Russians there. Still waiting for that to happen.
|
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
If Russians breach the airspace boundary then Canada can take it to UN and humiliate the Russians there. Still waiting for that to happen.
|
lol UN |
|
|
| exraver |
THE Royal Navy is set to save £10bn from the defence budget by dropping plans to buy the most expensive fighter aircraft ever built to fly off its new aircraft carriers.
It is set to swap the £13.8bn Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project for an improved stealthier version of the Boeing F/A18 Super Hornet which currently flies off US Navy carriers.
The potential move was discussed at a meeting between Liam Fox and defence chiefs last weekend to discuss cuts to be made in the ongoing Strategic Defence and Security Review.
“JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme,” a senior defence source said. “It makes no sense at all in the current climate and even if we continued with it, we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy.”
The Joint Strike Fighter, produced by Boeing’s main US rival Lockheed Martin, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget with costs already put at £13.8bn and rising.
From Sunday Times. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by exraver
|
:stongue:
Yeah, thats another thing with these "projects". The numbers they give ya are rarely final. When they say the planes will cost a dozen billion bucks, that number will most likely grow ... they like to give low initial estimates to get the government to suck into the project, and then they will be reluctant to pull out half-way when they realize the costs are much higher.
I know it from experience, working for a year at municipal government levels. Those contracts with artificially low prices, oh boy, how often do those change. Because its taxpayer money involved - pfffft, no big deal! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| The day we dont answer the russians knock on our door they might just let themselves in |
|
|
|
|
