Politics

GW Johnson · 2016-11-26 17:12:30

Hi Spacenut:

My own heritage includes English, French, and Cherokee Indian. The Cherokee is above 6%, if not double that. No Mexican (Spanish + Indian) that I know of, although I have some cousins who married folk of Mexican descent. My own Indian heritage shows up in two ways: (1) the first tool I usually pick up is a hand axe (tomahawk), and (2) I cannot stand to wear heavy, hard, tight shoes. I wear soft stuff that approximates a mocassin, even when walking through the cactus. (So I guess I show an Indian tough side, as well.)

Tom quite apparently did not read my post 300 above, when he replied in his post 301 above. He questioned whether I was part Mexican, in spite of me explicitly saying I was not. He cannot see (or think) past the political propaganda that he believes so fervently. He missed ENTIRELY the points I tried to make in my post 300 above.

Kdb512 is also tarring himself a bit with his extreme conservatism. I see it in the way he responds to RobertDyck. Of course, Robert goes off the deep end a little bit, too, just not as egregiously, when provoked.

That politically-propagandized BS is why I usually choose not to respond to the egregious BS I often see posted in this thread. But overt racism is just too evil to ignore! So I shot my mouth off in response to Tom. And nothing of the political BS I have ever seen anywhere will change my opinions. They are based on human values that I chose out of moral compunction, not the ones taught to me as a child.

And, my wife grew up in El Paso. I grew up near Dallas. We met at college. Got married over 40 years ago. She's half-Japanese, the rest English/Welsh. Mixing pot, as you said. And I like the mix!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-11-26 17:18:42)

kbd512 · 2016-11-27 04:49:17

RobertDyck wrote:

Listen to what Tom is saying here. He's trying to tell Canada how to spend our money, how much we're supposed to spend, and where we're supposed to send out troops. If the US wants to be "leader of the free world" then expect the rest of that "free world" will have strong opinions about what that leader is demanding. If you don't want the rest of us to tell the US what to do, then stop trying to tell us what to do. If you don't want us to have an opinion, then stop trying to be leader.

Defense agreements are supposed to benefit all parties involved. If you feel that the NATO defense spending agreements are not in Canada's best interests, then Canada can leave NATO and there is nothing the US can do to stop that. If you wish to remain a NATO member, then fund your military to the agreement set forth in the documentation your country signed as a member of NATO. I don't care which course of action Canada takes.

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom has repeated the same crap that a lot of Republicans have stated. Some Democrats as well, but not so many. He claimed the rest of NATO hasn't spent enough on military. The rest of us have stated the US spends far too much on military. Our economies are deeply intertwined. The US does more trade with Canada than any other country, period. Has since World War 2; possibly before that. Canada has a smaller population, and correspondingly smaller economy. We do as much trade with the US as the US does with Canada, so Canada is even more dependent on the US than the US is on Canada. But we both depend on each other. If the US economy goes into full depression, it will pull the rest of the world with it. So yes, we demand the US doesn't do something stupid that will destroy our economy. Overspending on military to drive the US into full bank collapse? The US did that in 2008; politicians talk about "recovery" but they keep repeating the same mistakes.

The US government is in financial trouble because it spends way too much money on entitlements. Presidents like Bush and Obama have done nothing but make the situation worse. President Bush gave us TSA, DHS, and the Iraq War. President Obama gave us the (Un)Affordable Health Care Act and stimulus spending. Entitlements (individual and corporate welfare) are a far greater threat to our national security than our military spending.

The US has spent more on defense lately because our NATO allies have not spent what was agreed to in their own defense. We're picking up the slack and taking lots of heat for it. The US military spending is to ensure that from wherever an attack may come from, it will be swiftly and decisively stopped. Could the money spent provide more "bang for the buck"? Sure. I've outlined several proposals to do that.

RobertDyck wrote:

No, Canada isn't going to spend as much on military as Republicans in the US demand. People like Tom keep demanding that Canada and other NATO countries spend more on military. Those in Canada and NATO countries keep demanding that the US spend less! The US must stop wasting money on useless military spending, and focus on its own economy. Don't like us telling the US what to do? Then stop telling us what to do.

NATO is NOT a Republican organization, Rob. Stop trying to shift blame. Canada signed documents and then reneged on its agreements.

RobertDyck wrote:

kbd512: I just blamed it on Tom, but in your post, you did the same thing. Since World War 2, the US has tried to tell the rest of NATO how much we're supposed to spend, and where we're supposed to deploy our forces. If you don't like us telling you what to do, then stop trying to tell us what to do.

Nice try. You blamed Republicans. In their speeches as Presidential candidates, Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders, and Mr. Trump all stated that NATO members needed to start paying what they were obligated to pay. Do you think they were just trying to win votes or do you think they were pointing out the staggering level of hypocrisy inherent to the excuses our allies have given for reneging on defense agreements? The US is picking up the slack and it's costing us a lot of money.

RobertDyck wrote:

As for fancy military technology, Russia and China are not threatening Canada or western Europe. Their air defence systems defend themselves from attack, they don't threaten us. The US developed F-15 fighters a number of years ago, so Russia developed "Flanker" fighters to counter them. They aren't a threat to Canada. They could be considered a threat to Europe, but UK/Germany/Spain developed the Eurofighter Typhoon, France developed the Dassault Rafale, and Sweden developed the JAS-39 Gripen. So Europe hasn't sat still.

The most powerful military on Earth is located just to the south of Canada's southern border and is Canada's ally, so no other country is threatening Canada. If Canada becomes involved in a shooting war with China or Russia, what plans have been made to ensure Canada's air defenses are not wiped out on the first day of the war, apart from relying on the US to come to Canada's aid? You're complaining about how much the US spends on defense whilst refusing to pay what Canada agreed to pay for its own defense as a NATO member and simultaneously provide no plans for defending your own country apart from relying on the US, which only deters military threats from China and Russia by having the most powerful military in the world.

The Gripen, Rafale, and Typhoon have all had difficulties in engagements against Indian Su-35's flown by experienced pilots. The only engagements that any of those fighters, to include the Su-35's, ever won against F-22's were engagements that started with the adversary on the tail of the F-22, within visual range, against F-22 pilots with fewer than 500 total hours of flight experience. In all other engagements where the F-22's weren't simply acting like target drones, irrespective of the experience level of individual pilots, no engagements were ever lost by the F-22's because their adversaries could never find the F-22's, let alone acquire radar or IR locks to launch weapons against the F-22's. No F-35's have been successfully engaged by their adversaries in any combat exercises flown to date.

RobertDyck wrote:

Besides, Canada developed the Avro Arrow. When Russia demonstrated the Tu-95 Bear bomber in 1952, the Canadian air force developed requirements for a new all weather interceptor in 1953. This new fighter was intended to shoot down the Bear bomber. Canada paid for development of this new fighter, and intended to pay for it by selling the fighter to our NATO allies. A Canadian company called Avro developed the Arrow, 5 prototype aircraft with the a pair of J75 engines were test flown in 1958. However, production aircraft were intended to have a new engine, the mark 2 had a pair of Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines. One prototype mark 2 aircraft was complete in 1959. The aircraft didn't have engines inserted, but a pair of engines were on a stand immediately behind it. All they had to do was push the engines inside, bolt in place, connect fuel lines, connect electrical control cables. It would have taken technicians 8 more hours to do that, and that work was going to be done first thing the following morning. That's when the order came to scrap it.

The Arrow was about as useful as the F-106. The Arrow may very well have been the fastest interceptor in the skies, but it could never outrun a missile and the Arrow, like the F-106, was an anachronism when pitted against aircraft that were developed just ten years later.

RobertDyck wrote:

The Arrow as designed to supercruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet. Canadian air force requirements said it had to be able to fly mach 2.0 in flat level flight using after burner at 50,000 feet, but the Arrow as able to fly mach 2.5. The fastest US fighter jets at the time had a top speed of mach 1.6. Canadian air force requirements said it had to endure 3G turns, but the Arrow as designed for 9G positive or 3G negative acceleration. Fighter jets today are designed for 9G positive or 3G negative. US fighter jets in the 1950s would radio radar data to an air base, where a computer would process it and radio back results to be displayed to the pilot. The Arrow had everything onboard. This meant US fighters had no radar once they flew out of radio range of an air base, but the Arrow was designed to fly in Canada's northern territories where there are very few bases, almost none. The Arrow as the first fighter to use fly-by-wire. The first US fighter to use that was the F-16 which first flew in 1974. Air interceptor missiles in the 1950s required fighter pilots to use radio to "fly" the missile into enemy aircraft. There were proposals for a "fire and forget" targeting system, but it was never completed. Canada's fighter program included developing "fire and forget" targeting for AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. The Avro Arrow was the best fighter jet for it's day. In fact the only US fighter jet capable of matching the Arrow in every way is the F-22 Raptor, and that's a 21st century aircraft.

Is it even possible for Canadians to separate science reality from science fiction when it comes to the Arrow?

The Arrow was not a "fly-by-wire" fighter. It had an electro-mechanical control input system which was very different from the digital computer that controlled the otherwise uncontrollable F-16. If any pilot ever attempted a 9G turn in a supersonic Arrow, it would've become the world's most expensive lawn dart. The Astra fire control system and fire-and-forget missiles were proposals, as you put it. In other words, ideas about things that never existed. Astra was actually cancelled before the Arrow was cancelled and no fire-and-forget air intercept missile existed in 1959.

RobertDyck wrote:

Bottom line: Canada developed the best fighter jet in the world at the time. The US panicked, demanded Canada scrap it. The US put heavy pressure on NATO allies to not buy any from Canada if we did finish it. France placed an order for Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines to be installed in their Mirage fighters, but they wouldn't buy any Arrow fighters. So we went through this before, why would we do it again?

The bottom line is that Canada developed a twin-engined F-106 capable of carrying twice the F-106's weapons load out and nothing more. The Arrow was cancelled because it provided so little in the way of air intercept capability over the F-106 without the Astra fire control system and fire-and-forget missiles. The Arrow's combat mission radius was just 660km, compared to the F-106's 926km combat mission radius. Arrow was at least a year away from serial production whereas the F-106 was in serial production a few months after the Arrow's cancellation.

Last edited by kbd512 (2016-11-27 04:52:18)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-27 08:20:23

kbd512 wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
Listen to what Tom is saying here. He's trying to tell Canada how to spend our money, how much we're supposed to spend, and where we're supposed to send out troops. If the US wants to be "leader of the free world" then expect the rest of that "free world" will have strong opinions about what that leader is demanding. If you don't want the rest of us to tell the US what to do, then stop trying to tell us what to do. If you don't want us to have an opinion, then stop trying to be leader.
Defense agreements are supposed to benefit all parties involved. If you feel that the NATO defense spending agreements are not in Canada's best interests, then Canada can leave NATO and there is nothing the US can do to stop that. If you wish to remain a NATO member, then fund your military to the agreement set forth in the documentation your country signed as a member of NATO. I don't care which course of action Canada takes.
RobertDyck wrote:
Tom has repeated the same crap that a lot of Republicans have stated. Some Democrats as well, but not so many. He claimed the rest of NATO hasn't spent enough on military. The rest of us have stated the US spends far too much on military. Our economies are deeply intertwined. The US does more trade with Canada than any other country, period. Has since World War 2; possibly before that. Canada has a smaller population, and correspondingly smaller economy. We do as much trade with the US as the US does with Canada, so Canada is even more dependent on the US than the US is on Canada. But we both depend on each other. If the US economy goes into full depression, it will pull the rest of the world with it. So yes, we demand the US doesn't do something stupid that will destroy our economy. Overspending on military to drive the US into full bank collapse? The US did that in 2008; politicians talk about "recovery" but they keep repeating the same mistakes.
The US government is in financial trouble because it spends way too much money on entitlements.

Indeed, for the amount of money we spend on entitlements, we could have established bases on the Moon and Mars, and have been operating them for several decades now since Apollo! JFK got us going with the Apollo Project, and LBJ continued this, but then he started his War on Poverty, and that just took the wind out of the sail of NASA's space program! We could have built upon the Apollo Program if not for Johnson's "War on Poverty" and probably there would be less poor today had we not spend the money on LBJ's "War on Poverty!"

Presidents like Bush and Obama have done nothing but make the situation worse. President Bush gave us TSA, DHS, and the Iraq War.

To be fair, I can't imagine a President doing nothing but shrugging his shoulders in the wake of the 9/11 attack, perhaps Obama might, but he is the only one.

President Obama gave us the (Un)Affordable Health Care Act and stimulus spending. Entitlements (individual and corporate welfare) are a far greater threat to our national security than our military spending.
The US has spent more on defense lately because our NATO allies have not spent what was agreed to in their own defense. We're picking up the slack and taking lots of heat for it. The US military spending is to ensure that from wherever an attack may come from, it will be swiftly and decisively stopped. Could the money spent provide more "bang for the buck"? Sure. I've outlined several proposals to do that.
RobertDyck wrote:
No, Canada isn't going to spend as much on military as Republicans in the US demand. People like Tom keep demanding that Canada and other NATO countries spend more on military. Those in Canada and NATO countries keep demanding that the US spend less! The US must stop wasting money on useless military spending, and focus on its own economy. Don't like us telling the US what to do? Then stop telling us what to do.
NATO is NOT a Republican organization, Rob. Stop trying to shift blame. Canada signed documents and then reneged on its agreements.
RobertDyck wrote:
kbd512: I just blamed it on Tom, but in your post, you did the same thing. Since World War 2, the US has tried to tell the rest of NATO how much we're supposed to spend, and where we're supposed to deploy our forces. If you don't like us telling you what to do, then stop trying to tell us what to do.
Nice try. You blamed Republicans. In their speeches as Presidential candidates, Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders, and Mr. Trump all stated that NATO members needed to start paying what they were obligated to pay. Do you think they were just trying to win votes or do you think they were pointing out the staggering level of hypocrisy inherent to the excuses our allies have given for reneging on defense agreements? The US is picking up the slack and it's costing us a lot of money.
RobertDyck wrote:
As for fancy military technology, Russia and China are not threatening Canada or western Europe. Their air defence systems defend themselves from attack, they don't threaten us. The US developed F-15 fighters a number of years ago, so Russia developed "Flanker" fighters to counter them. They aren't a threat to Canada. They could be considered a threat to Europe, but UK/Germany/Spain developed the Eurofighter Typhoon, France developed the Dassault Rafale, and Sweden developed the JAS-39 Gripen. So Europe hasn't sat still.
The most powerful military on Earth is located just to the south of Canada's southern border and is Canada's ally, so no other country is threatening Canada. If Canada becomes involved in a shooting war with China or Russia, what plans have been made to ensure Canada's air defenses are not wiped out on the first day of the war, apart from relying on the US to come to Canada's aid? You're complaining about how much the US spends on defense whilst refusing to pay what Canada agreed to pay for its own defense as a NATO member and simultaneously provide no plans for defending your own country apart from relying on the US, which only deters military threats from China and Russia by having the most powerful military in the world.
The Gripen, Rafale, and Typhoon have all had difficulties in engagements against Indian Su-35's flown by experienced pilots. The only engagements that any of those fighters, to include the Su-35's, ever won against F-22's were engagements that started with the adversary on the tail of the F-22, within visual range, against F-22 pilots with fewer than 500 total hours of flight experience. In all other engagements where the F-22's weren't simply acting like target drones, irrespective of the experience level of individual pilots, no engagements were ever lost by the F-22's because their adversaries could never find the F-22's, let alone acquire radar or IR locks to launch weapons against the F-22's. No F-35's have been successfully engaged by their adversaries in any combat exercises flown to date.
RobertDyck wrote:
Besides, Canada developed the Avro Arrow. When Russia demonstrated the Tu-95 Bear bomber in 1952, the Canadian air force developed requirements for a new all weather interceptor in 1953. This new fighter was intended to shoot down the Bear bomber. Canada paid for development of this new fighter, and intended to pay for it by selling the fighter to our NATO allies. A Canadian company called Avro developed the Arrow, 5 prototype aircraft with the a pair of J75 engines were test flown in 1958. However, production aircraft were intended to have a new engine, the mark 2 had a pair of Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines. One prototype mark 2 aircraft was complete in 1959. The aircraft didn't have engines inserted, but a pair of engines were on a stand immediately behind it. All they had to do was push the engines inside, bolt in place, connect fuel lines, connect electrical control cables. It would have taken technicians 8 more hours to do that, and that work was going to be done first thing the following morning. That's when the order came to scrap it.
The Arrow was about as useful as the F-106. The Arrow may very well have been the fastest interceptor in the skies, but it could never outrun a missile and the Arrow, like the F-106, was an anachronism when pitted against aircraft that were developed just ten years later.
RobertDyck wrote:
The Arrow as designed to supercruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet. Canadian air force requirements said it had to be able to fly mach 2.0 in flat level flight using after burner at 50,000 feet, but the Arrow as able to fly mach 2.5. The fastest US fighter jets at the time had a top speed of mach 1.6. Canadian air force requirements said it had to endure 3G turns, but the Arrow as designed for 9G positive or 3G negative acceleration. Fighter jets today are designed for 9G positive or 3G negative. US fighter jets in the 1950s would radio radar data to an air base, where a computer would process it and radio back results to be displayed to the pilot. The Arrow had everything onboard. This meant US fighters had no radar once they flew out of radio range of an air base, but the Arrow was designed to fly in Canada's northern territories where there are very few bases, almost none. The Arrow as the first fighter to use fly-by-wire. The first US fighter to use that was the F-16 which first flew in 1974. Air interceptor missiles in the 1950s required fighter pilots to use radio to "fly" the missile into enemy aircraft. There were proposals for a "fire and forget" targeting system, but it was never completed. Canada's fighter program included developing "fire and forget" targeting for AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. The Avro Arrow was the best fighter jet for it's day. In fact the only US fighter jet capable of matching the Arrow in every way is the F-22 Raptor, and that's a 21st century aircraft.
Is it even possible for Canadians to separate science reality from science fiction when it comes to the Arrow?
The Arrow was not a "fly-by-wire" fighter. It had an electro-mechanical control input system which was very different from the digital computer that controlled the otherwise uncontrollable F-16. If any pilot ever attempted a 9G turn in a supersonic Arrow, it would've become the world's most expensive lawn dart. The Astra fire control system and fire-and-forget missiles were proposals, as you put it. In other words, ideas about things that never existed. Astra was actually cancelled before the Arrow was cancelled and no fire-and-forget air intercept missile existed in 1959.
RobertDyck wrote:
Bottom line: Canada developed the best fighter jet in the world at the time. The US panicked, demanded Canada scrap it. The US put heavy pressure on NATO allies to not buy any from Canada if we did finish it. France placed an order for Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines to be installed in their Mirage fighters, but they wouldn't buy any Arrow fighters. So we went through this before, why would we do it again?
The bottom line is that Canada developed a twin-engined F-106 capable of carrying twice the F-106's weapons load out and nothing more. The Arrow was cancelled because it provided so little in the way of air intercept capability over the F-106 without the Astra fire control system and fire-and-forget missiles. The Arrow's combat mission radius was just 660km, compared to the F-106's 926km combat mission radius. Arrow was at least a year away from serial production whereas the F-106 was in serial production a few months after the Arrow's cancellation.

RobertDyck · 2016-11-27 13:50:46

kbd512 wrote:

Defense agreements are supposed to benefit all parties involved. If you feel that the NATO defense spending agreements are not in Canada's best interests, then Canada can leave NATO and there is nothing the US can do to stop that. If you wish to remain a NATO member, then fund your military to the agreement set forth

Luckily, you are not in charge. All nations of NATO are currently spending what they feel is appropriate. You feel every country other than the US spends too little, I'm saying no they're not. The US is spending way too much. One of the reasons I get to say that, is because individuals in the US like yourself try to tell my country how much to spend. We're not going to increase spending, and we aren't going to leave NATO. Get over it.

kbd512 wrote:

The US government is in financial trouble because it spends way too much money on entitlements. Presidents like Bush and Obama have done nothing but make the situation worse. President Bush gave us TSA, DHS, and the Iraq War. President Obama gave us the (Un)Affordable Health Care Act and stimulus spending. Entitlements (individual and corporate welfare) are a far greater threat to our national security than our military spending.

Bull. Military and national security spending in year 2000 was $288 billion. The first thing George W. Bush did was increase it. It was $700 billion in 2008, $799 billion in 2009. The first budget approved by Obama was year 2010; that year military and national security spending was $901 billion! That's your primary problem right there.

I was back in Canada, I think I got back the evening of March 30, 2000. The company I worked for produced software for manufacturers, most customers were American. We say a dramatic drop-off starting the second week of February, 2001. That's when the recession started. That's many months before 9/11, but only 2 weeks after the inauguration of George W. Bush.

The US deficit for 2016 is $427 billion. I am calling to reduce military and national security spending to what it was the last year America had a balanced budget, plus inflation. That would cut spending by $227 billion. I realize Republicans panic at that idea, but it still leaves America with 60% more than the sum total of military and national security budgets for Russia + China + North Korea combined. All other countries are either allies of the US, or have a military budget less than $2 billion. The website Global Firepower uses the CIA as their source. They list the top 126 countries. According to their list, other than the 3 countries I listed, the largest military budget of a country that isn't an ally of the US is Qatar with a budget of $1.93 billion US dollars in 2015.

But again, balancing the budget means cutting military and national security spending by $427 billion, and domestic spending by $200 billion. Not one or the other, both!

Domestic spending enhance the economy. Domestic spending creates jobs. A little of domestic spending comes back in taxes the next year. Not all, just a portion. However, military spending is a giant toilet, stop flushing money down that toilet.

Yes, TSA and DNS and the Iraq War are bad. By the way, TSA and DNS are part of "and national security". I still argue that the ban on liquids above a certain size is just to ensure people have to buy tooth paste and mouth wash from airport stores, instead of bring with them from home. Security experts have often said this is to "appear" to do something, it doesn't actually provide any security at all.

kbd512 wrote:

You're complaining about how much the US spends on defense whilst refusing to pay what Canada agreed to pay for its own defense as a NATO member and simultaneously provide no plans for defending your own country apart from relying on the US, which only deters military threats from China and Russia by having the most powerful military in the world.

You haven't read what I posted on a Canadian political forum. I called for Canada to repair and upgrade CF-18 Hornet fighters that have sat idle in storage or used for spare parts. Currently Canada has 2 squadrons for training, and 4 squadrons for combat. I called for doubling the number of combat squadrons. That would require not only repairing/upgrading the planes we have now, but also purchasing about a dozen more. I want to re-commission a former Canadian air force station at Resolute. That was changed to a commercial air port when it was decommissioned. A "station" does not have fighters based there, instead it can be used as a temporary base during combat or an "incident". It has barracks for pilots instead of houses. I want to increase those facilities to include heated hangers for 2 squadrons of CF-18 fighters, and tarmac (parking lot) for 2 more squadrons. And barracks for pilots and technicians of all 4 squadrons. I want it bulked up so the air would would equivalent to an American Nimitz class supercarrier. Instead of C-2 Greyhound cargo planes, this actual air port could support C-130 Hercules cargo planes. The Canadian air force already has them and operates them at northern bases, so this would be just one more base. Instead of S-3B Viking patrol aircraft, use CC-140 Aurora patrol aircraft. That's the Canadian designation of an Orion patrol aircraft; much bigger than a Viking. Also permanently station UAVs, and SAR (Search And Rescue) helicopters certified for arctic cold. Canada's Navy had 2 AOR ships (Auxiliary Oil Replenishment) which provide fuel, ammunition, food, and supplies to navy ships at sea. AOR ships also have a hospital, dental office, and navy lawyer for sailors who get in trouble. I wanted to maintain our 2 existing ships, and build a 3rd new one. The new one would have a "dual acting hull". That means the bow is a sharp bow that cuts through waves like a knife, so it can travel through deep ocean in heavy seas including a hurricane. However, instead of a squared-off stern, it has a heavy icebreaker bow. With azimuthing pods, a ship can drive backwards as easily as forwards. This would allow the new navy AOR to travel through the high arctic. Our previous Prime Minister bought a played-out lead and zinc mine, and put a coast guard sign on it. It's over 100 km off the northwest passage, so completely useless. I want to dismantle the steel port buildings and concrete dock, use the same kiln that is used to make cement from stone to recycle that concrete, clean mooring posts, and move the entire port to Resolute. It's right in the middle of the northwest passage. And build the port large enough to service the largest oil tanker ever built, and largest container ship ever built. Because that's exactly what will go through there. No cranes to off-load containers, just facilities to refuel and repair ships that get in trouble passing through. Upgrade our largest coast guard heavy icebreaker instead of scrapping it, and a second intermediate icebreaker. Refit them with mounting points for navy frigate weaponry, with weapons stored at an arctic base and an "Aircrane" helicopter available to transport the weapons to the ships while at sea. I also want one Roll-On/Roll-Off auto-transport ship, designated as merchant marine. It would be used to transport Canadian army vehicles, but would be used to transport commercial cargo such as cars when not in use by the military. That would defray cost.

But no one would listen to me. They let our 2 AOR ships get ruined. They're scrambling now for an "interim" replacement. At least they finished repairing our 4 submarines. Canada bought "lemons" from the UK. They looked good on paper: all the features of a modern attack submarine, but with diesel engine and batteries instead of nuclear reactors. However, it turned out they all needed serious repairs. But they've been fixed now.

kbd512 wrote:

The Gripen, Rafale, and Typhoon have all had difficulties in engagements against Indian Su-35's flown by experienced pilots. The only engagements that any of those fighters, to include the Su-35's, ever won against F-22's were engagements that started with the adversary on the tail of the F-22, within visual range, against F-22 pilots with fewer than 500 total hours of flight experience. In all other engagements where the F-22's weren't simply acting like target drones, irrespective of the experience level of individual pilots, no engagements were ever lost by the F-22's because their adversaries could never find the F-22's, let alone acquire radar or IR locks to launch weapons against the F-22's. No F-35's have been successfully engaged by their adversaries in any combat exercises flown to date.

I am skeptical of such claims, to put it mildly. However, Canada did consider F-22 aircraft. The problem is the US Congress will not allow sales of F-22 outside the US. Canada and the US are supposed to have unified continental air defence through NORAD, but Congress still won't let us purchase F-22. We probably couldn't afford them anyway; sour grapes. When you look at requirements the Canadian air force wrote in 1953, for what became the Avro Arrow, there are only 3 fighters today that meet them: F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, and PAK-FA. Of those, only the Typhoon is available to Canada.

F-35 has several problems. It's stealth isn't as good as F-22, and not as good as advertised. It has a single engine; Canadian air safety regulations require any single engine aircraft to fly over open water no farther than gliding distance back to shore. That's why Canada didn't buy F-16 fighters in the late 1970s. Instead Canada approached the manufacturer of the YF-17, and asked them to substantially upgrade it to meet Canadian requirements. They did so, but Canada couldn't purchase enough aircraft to meet the manufacturer's needs, so they went to the US navy. The US air force just bought F-16 as a light-weight inexpensive single-pilot fighter to augment the heavy F-15, not replace it. So they thought the Navy could do the same. They did. CF-18 is the Canadian version, and has been upgraded several times. But the point is Canada can't buy a single engine aircraft. Then there's cost. Improvement of F-35 over upgraded CF-18 is not enough to justify the extreme expense. Besides, neither CF-18 nor F-35 perform as well as Avro Arrow. Canada still wants their Avro Arrow back. The only fighter jets that can do what the Arrow did are F-22, Typhoon, or PAK-FA. And of those, only Typhoon is available.

Canada doesn't want to say it has to be just one aircraft, because the manufacturer could dramatically increase cost. That already happened when the previous Canadian government said we "had to" buy the F-35. Lockheed-Martin increased the price so much that the bottom line is we can't afford it. Period. No debate, we just can't afford what they're demanding. Canada has tried to equivocate, the Rafale is only capable of supercruise at mach 1.02, the same as the Avro Arrow mark 1. The Swedish JAS-39 Gripen is designed for cold weather, so that makes it sound good for Canada. However, it has only one engine, and simulations by the British Royal air force show poor performance in a dog fight against a MiG-35. Those simulations showed the Rafale had a kill ratio of 1:1, Typhoon had a kill ratio of 10:1, and F-22 had a kill ratio of 20:1. That's against a MiG-35, not an Su-35. Yes, I was concerned about performance against Su-35.

kbd512 wrote:

The Arrow was not a "fly-by-wire" fighter. It had an electro-mechanical control input system which was very different from the digital computer that controlled the otherwise uncontrollable F-16.

Ah, you do know a little. Yes, the F-16 had better fly-by-wire than Arrow. But F-16 was a decade and a half newer. The first Avro Arrow mark 1 flew in 1958, the first F-16 flew in 1974. That doesn't change the fact Arrow had it first.

Canada has been plagued by the American-built F-104 Starfighter. Pilots called it "lawn dart" because of the great number of times it crashed. Another name was "widow-maker". More aircraft were lost to accidents than in combat. We certainly couldn't continue to operate those.

Terraformer · 2016-11-27 16:06:05

Luckily, you are not in charge. All nations of NATO are currently spending what they feel is appropriate. You feel every country other than the US spends too little, I'm saying no they're not. The US is spending way too much. One of the reasons I get to say that, is because individuals in the US like yourself try to tell my country how much to spend. We're not going to increase spending, and we aren't going to leave NATO. Get over it.

If the countries can decide whether or not to follow the NATO charter when it comes to spending, then the US can decide whether or not to follow it when it comes to defending other members. That's only fair.

kbd512 · 2016-11-27 16:23:36

RobertDyck wrote:

Luckily, you are not in charge. All nations of NATO are currently spending what they feel is appropriate. You feel every country other than the US spends too little, I'm saying no they're not. The US is spending way too much. One of the reasons I get to say that, is because individuals in the US like yourself try to tell my country how much to spend. We're not going to increase spending, and we aren't going to leave NATO. Get over it.

You're right, Rob, we're not in charge of Canada. I never claimed any such thing and I never told you how much to spend. Do you feel like a big boy now? I swear, your arguments are like a child arguing with Mommy and Daddy about paying the rent. In the real world, when you don't pay the rent you get evicted.

Canada is a NATO member, Canada signed defense spending agreements, and now Canada hasn't honored those agreements. Should the US feel obligated to live up to our NATO agreements?

RobertDyck wrote:

Bull. Military and national security spending in year 2000 was $288 billion. The first thing George W. Bush did was increase it. It was $700 billion in 2008, $799 billion in 2009. The first budget approved by Obama was year 2010; that year military and national security spending was $901 billion! That's your primary problem right there.

You do seem to have an affinity for "bull". Entitlement spending in the US was 46% of the Federal budget in 2009. That's our primary problem right there.

RobertDyck wrote:

I was back in Canada, I think I got back the evening of March 30, 2000. The company I worked for produced software for manufacturers, most customers were American. We say a dramatic drop-off starting the second week of February, 2001. That's when the recession started. That's many months before 9/11, but only 2 weeks after the inauguration of George W. Bush.

President Obama blamed the 2009 recession on President Bush. Should President Bush have blamed the 2001 recession on President Clinton?

RobertDyck wrote:

The US deficit for 2016 is $427 billion. I am calling to reduce military and national security spending to what it was the last year America had a balanced budget, plus inflation. That would cut spending by $227 billion. I realize Republicans panic at that idea, but it still leaves America with 60% more than the sum total of military and national security budgets for Russia + China + North Korea combined. All other countries are either allies of the US, or have a military budget less than $2 billion. The website Global Firepower uses the CIA as their source. They list the top 126 countries. According to their list, other than the 3 countries I listed, the largest military budget of a country that isn't an ally of the US is Qatar with a budget of $1.93 billion US dollars in 2015.

Nobody over here in the US is buying your argument, but keep pitching it until you're blue in the face.

RobertDyck wrote:

But again, balancing the budget means cutting military and national security spending by $427 billion, and domestic spending by $200 billion. Not one or the other, both!

Balancing the budget means halting out-of-control entitlements spending and giving American workers jobs so both the national economy and the workers, personally, benefit from their own work.

RobertDyck wrote:

Domestic spending enhance the economy. Domestic spending creates jobs. A little of domestic spending comes back in taxes the next year. Not all, just a portion. However, military spending is a giant toilet, stop flushing money down that toilet.

Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from an individual or business. Unfortunately, without a military you don't have a country if the people in the next country over who do have a military decide they want what you have.

RobertDyck wrote:

Yes, TSA and DNS and the Iraq War are bad. By the way, TSA and DNS are part of "and national security". I still argue that the ban on liquids above a certain size is just to ensure people have to buy tooth paste and mouth wash from airport stores, instead of bring with them from home. Security experts have often said this is to "appear" to do something, it doesn't actually provide any security at all.

Agreed. Security theatrics is not beneficial to our national security.

RobertDyck wrote:

You haven't read what I posted on a Canadian political forum. I called for Canada to repair and upgrade CF-18 Hornet fighters that have sat idle in storage or used for spare parts. Currently Canada has 2 squadrons for training, and 4 squadrons for combat. I called for doubling the number of combat squadrons. That would require not only repairing/upgrading the planes we have now, but also purchasing about a dozen more. I want to re-commission a former Canadian air force station at Resolute. That was changed to a commercial air port when it was decommissioned. A "station" does not have fighters based there, instead it can be used as a temporary base during combat or an "incident". It has barracks for pilots instead of houses. I want to increase those facilities to include heated hangers for 2 squadrons of CF-18 fighters, and tarmac (parking lot) for 2 more squadrons. And barracks for pilots and technicians of all 4 squadrons. I want it bulked up so the air would would equivalent to an American Nimitz class supercarrier. Instead of C-2 Greyhound cargo planes, this actual air port could support C-130 Hercules cargo planes. The Canadian air force already has them and operates them at northern bases, so this would be just one more base. Instead of S-3B Viking patrol aircraft, use CC-140 Aurora patrol aircraft. That's the Canadian designation of an Orion patrol aircraft; much bigger than a Viking. Also permanently station UAVs, and SAR (Search And Rescue) helicopters certified for arctic cold. Canada's Navy had 2 AOR ships (Auxiliary Oil Replenishment) which provide fuel, ammunition, food, and supplies to navy ships at sea. AOR ships also have a hospital, dental office, and navy lawyer for sailors who get in trouble. I wanted to maintain our 2 existing ships, and build a 3rd new one. The new one would have a "dual acting hull". That means the bow is a sharp bow that cuts through waves like a knife, so it can travel through deep ocean in heavy seas including a hurricane. However, instead of a squared-off stern, it has a heavy icebreaker bow. With azimuthing pods, a ship can drive backwards as easily as forwards. This would allow the new navy AOR to travel through the high arctic. Our previous Prime Minister bought a played-out lead and zinc mine, and put a coast guard sign on it. It's over 100 km off the northwest passage, so completely useless. I want to dismantle the steel port buildings and concrete dock, use the same kiln that is used to make cement from stone to recycle that concrete, clean mooring posts, and move the entire port to Resolute. It's right in the middle of the northwest passage. And build the port large enough to service the largest oil tanker ever built, and largest container ship ever built. Because that's exactly what will go through there. No cranes to off-load containers, just facilities to refuel and repair ships that get in trouble passing through. Upgrade our largest coast guard heavy icebreaker instead of scrapping it, and a second intermediate icebreaker. Refit them with mounting points for navy frigate weaponry, with weapons stored at an arctic base and an "Aircrane" helicopter available to transport the weapons to the ships while at sea. I also want one Roll-On/Roll-Off auto-transport ship, designated as merchant marine. It would be used to transport Canadian army vehicles, but would be used to transport commercial cargo such as cars when not in use by the military. That would defray cost.

What would it cost, Rob?

RobertDyck wrote:

But no one would listen to me. They let our 2 AOR ships get ruined. They're scrambling now for an "interim" replacement. At least they finished repairing our 4 submarines. Canada bought "lemons" from the UK. They looked good on paper: all the features of a modern attack submarine, but with diesel engine and batteries instead of nuclear reactors. However, it turned out they all needed serious repairs. But they've been fixed now.

Have you ever thought about why no one listened to you?

RobertDyck wrote:

I am skeptical of such claims, to put it mildly. However, Canada did consider F-22 aircraft. The problem is the US Congress will not allow sales of F-22 outside the US. Canada and the US are supposed to have unified continental air defence through NORAD, but Congress still won't let us purchase F-22. We probably couldn't afford them anyway; sour grapes. When you look at requirements the Canadian air force wrote in 1953, for what became the Avro Arrow, there are only 3 fighters today that meet them: F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, and PAK-FA. Of those, only the Typhoon is available to Canada.

I honestly don't know what the real reason was for not allowing Australia, Canada, and the UK to purchase F-22's. If you think the F-35 was too expensive, then you're in for a very rude surprise with the F-22.

RobertDyck wrote:

F-35 has several problems. It's stealth isn't as good as F-22, and not as good as advertised. It has a single engine; Canadian air safety regulations require any single engine aircraft to fly over open water no farther than gliding distance back to shore. That's why Canada didn't buy F-16 fighters in the late 1970s. Instead Canada approached the manufacturer of the YF-17, and asked them to substantially upgrade it to meet Canadian requirements. They did so, but Canada couldn't purchase enough aircraft to meet the manufacturer's needs, so they went to the US navy. The US air force just bought F-16 as a light-weight inexpensive single-pilot fighter to augment the heavy F-15, not replace it. So they thought the Navy could do the same. They did. CF-18 is the Canadian version, and has been upgraded several times. But the point is Canada can't buy a single engine aircraft. Then there's cost. Improvement of F-35 over upgraded CF-18 is not enough to justify the extreme expense. Besides, neither CF-18 nor F-35 perform as well as Avro Arrow. Canada still wants their Avro Arrow back. The only fighter jets that can do what the Arrow did are F-22, Typhoon, or PAK-FA. And of those, only Typhoon is available.

Unless you work for Lockheed-Martin, you know bean dip about the F-35's low observability design features. You want F-22's, but have come up with every excuse imaginable for not purchasing less costly F-35's. The utter nonsense about the Avro Arrow being a better fighter than the CF-18 and F-35 is just laughable.

RobertDyck wrote:

Canada doesn't want to say it has to be just one aircraft, because the manufacturer could dramatically increase cost. That already happened when the previous Canadian government said we "had to" buy the F-35. Lockheed-Martin increased the price so much that the bottom line is we can't afford it. Period. No debate, we just can't afford what they're demanding. Canada has tried to equivocate, the Rafale is only capable of supercruise at mach 1.02, the same as the Avro Arrow mark 1. The Swedish JAS-39 Gripen is designed for cold weather, so that makes it sound good for Canada. However, it has only one engine, and simulations by the British Royal air force show poor performance in a dog fight against a MiG-35. Those simulations showed the Rafale had a kill ratio of 1:1, Typhoon had a kill ratio of 10:1, and F-22 had a kill ratio of 20:1. That's against a MiG-35, not an Su-35. Yes, I was concerned about performance against Su-35.

If you can't afford the F-35, then you definitely can't afford the F-22. You also have no argument about the manufacturer increasing the cost since you want to buy a different and more expensive product from the same manufacturer. The F-35 cost more than what was originally planned because our military insisted upon changing the requirements for the fighter after the design was already in EMD.

RobertDyck wrote:

Ah, you do know a little. Yes, the F-16 had better fly-by-wire than Arrow. But F-16 was a decade and a half newer. The first Avro Arrow mark 1 flew in 1958, the first F-16 flew in 1974. That doesn't change the fact Arrow had it first.

An electro-mechanical control input system is not the same thing as a computer preventing the aircraft from departing from controlled flight. The Russians experimented with electro-mechanical control input systems in the 1930's.

RobertDyck wrote:

Canada has been plagued by the American-built F-104 Starfighter. Pilots called it "lawn dart" because of the great number of times it crashed. Another name was "widow-maker". More aircraft were lost to accidents than in combat. We certainly couldn't continue to operate those.

Canada was not obligated to cancel the Arrow and Canada could've told anyone who made the suggestion to take a flying leap. Why is it that so many people who have never served a day in the military or worked for a defense contractor always know so much more about the technical merits of a design, or lack thereof, than the manufacturers and government personnel who actually produce and use the hardware?

GW Johnson · 2016-11-27 17:39:20

Whether Arrow was, or was not, a superior airplane, is no longer germane. It is 6 decades obsolete, no matter what.

I DO NOT agree with the conventional wisdom that only a modern, oversized, two-engine, software-controlled aircraft is the only way to build an effective combat fighter. The F-16 has long disproved that lie.

In point of fact, I think a 15+ year experienced reserve/national guard pilot could take on anything the west or the east has to offer with their 2-3 year experienced line pilots, and win the engagement, in a Korean-war-vintage F-86 retrofitted to carry underwing Sidewinder and Sparrow-or-AMRAAM missiles, plus a radar detector modified from something civilians can get from Radio Shack. Do NOT delete from that F-86 its guns!

I have decades of observations to support that contention.

Stealth is way over-rated. Stealth is more about corporate welfare state than it is about air combat. Stealth is frequency-dependent. That which is stealthy and looks like an insect at 100 MHz battlefield frequencies looks like an ocean liner at KHz search-track frequencies. The only real question is pixel resolution: a few miles at KHz frequencies, many meters at 100-MHz frequencies. When visual range is around 10 miles, who cares?

You do not need F-35 to defeat Su-35 or Mig-31. You need experienced pilots who know what the f**k they are doing, with the minimal airplane credible in the field. We have known that since WW1, from the Red Baron, who said it's not the machine, it's the man. All you need from the machine today is Mach near 1, missiles plus guns, maneuverability to ~ 6 gee, durability, and a radar warning receiver.

Sorry if I popped some cherished bubbles, but what I say is quite demonstrably true.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-11-27 17:42:43)

kbd512 · 2016-11-27 19:01:29

GW,

I'll agree that experience matters and it matters greatly when both pilots are flying aircraft with similar capabilities. If the Red Baron himself was flying the latest variant of the F-16, armed the latest and greatest air-to-air missiles and cannons, he would never know he was under attack from a rookie F-35 pilot until he observed a missile streaking towards his ship. IIRC, Dicta Boelcke specifies surprise attacks. If your adversary can't find you before you can find him, that certainly qualifies.

Your commentary on stealth seems to indicate why low observability is important. The WWII radars that can supposedly detect stealth aircraft only know that somewhere within a block of airspace multiple miles deep, there must be an aircraft. If Pilot A has to get within visual range to engage Pilot B, but Pilot B can engage from tens of miles away, who has the advantage?

Regarding the bursting of bubbles, Red Flag exercise results with both experienced and inexperienced pilots are not congruent with what you believe to be "true". Either everyone participating in those exercises is completely incompetent, or maybe, just maybe, it's really damn hard to find a stealth aircraft. If experimental results repeatedly do not agree with the theory that victory in air combat is merely a matter of pilot experience, then maybe it's time to adjust the theory.

RobertDyck · 2016-11-27 19:06:31

kbd512 wrote:

You're right, Rob, we're not in charge of Canada. I never claimed any such thing and I never told you how much to spend. Do you feel like a big boy now? I swear, your arguments are like a child arguing with Mommy and Daddy about paying the rent. In the real world, when you don't pay the rent you get evicted.

I'm tired of debating with children. Bully, bully, bully, then when the person you try to bully doesn't back down, accuse your would-be victim of being a child. You are nothing but a kindergarten bully. I have better things to do.

I tried to quote facts. Not opinion, but actual numbers with quoted sources to back them up. But that's how adults debate, you wouldn't understand that.

kbd512 wrote:

Have you ever thought about why no one listened to you?

You're right, people *DO* listen to me. I have achieved some significant accomplishments. I should relish in that, instead of wasting my time with you.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-11-27 19:23:41)

RobertDyck · 2016-11-27 19:16:02

GW: You're right, skilled experienced pilots are worth a lot more. Stealth is of limited value. There are already targeting systems to defeat it. However, supercruise has a major benefit. The reason requirements for the interceptor that became Arrow said it had to supercruise at mach 1.5 was the Tu-95 Bear bomber could cruise at 830 km/h. You have to be able to catch your opponent in order to engage.

GW Johnson · 2016-11-27 19:43:04

Kbd512:

I really think you misunderstood what I said, or you reversed it with "conventional" filters. Similar capabilities doesn't matter. Only adequate capabilities. If the aircraft capabilities are in the least adequate for the more experienced pilot, then statistically he will win. Period. Only what constitutes adequate capabilities has changed through time, and not since 1950's Korea.

In von Richthoven's day (circa 1917), a "credible" airplane flew ~80 mph, maneuvered at 3-4 gees, had only guns, and was only observable visually around 10 miles max. Not even von Richthoven himself, had the experience I predicate.

RobertDyck:

Today, high speed cruise capability is of little value because your KHz-frequency long-range search-track radar already knows approximately where the threat is and which way it is headed. So only dogfight transonic capability is of any real significance, and that only against another fighter. Depending upon exactly where you base your interceptors, higher speed capability is of little-to-no effective use against penetrating bombers. All you need to be is "in the way", as long as your weapons are supersonic. That can be done with Mach 0.4 T-33's from 1945.

Kdb512:

It's only hard to find a stealth aircraft if radar is your only means. KHz radar can get you close enough to find the SOB visually. Once you find him visually, why should you care what the software and the radar says? Your weapons should be good enough to attack him, no matter what your radar and your software say.

If they cannot acquire and track within 10 miles range, then what the f**k are we paying for? That's been pretty standard for radar-guided weapons since the 1960's. Which is exactly why linking your weapons to such "advanced" radar and software is a very egregious mistake.

RobertDyck:

High cruise or dash speed is only needed if your KHz search-track radar coverage is really bad (which it never has been), or if your basing is too spread-out over too-wide an area (which could be true, but need not be.) Such speeds are ONLY needed when the engagement converts to a tail chase.

With proper basing dispersal, it NEVER does convert to that tail chase, it remains sort-of head-on, no matter the scenario. All you need on your airplanes is a weapon capable of somewhat-higher supersonic speeds than the penetrating threat. Nearly every air-to-air weapon I ever heard of qualifies. No matter how old or primitive.

All:

It's the beyond visual range (BVR) fighter-on-fighter engagement where any of these stealth or speed advantages make any real difference. And neither really has all that much effect; it's the weapon that makes the real difference. What you want is very high weapon speed at terminal conditions, so as to ensure outmaneuvering the target by 3n + 6, AND shorter flight times to that engagement (higher average weapon speeds). The shorter flight time determines who can turn and run, or engage other targets, first.

That cannot be done with a rocket, or even a pulse motor rocket. It can be done with nothing more than a rocket-boosted ramjet-powered weapon. Like Meteor. Or the ramjet version of the Russian R-77/AA-12. Both are "wooden-round" solid gas generator-fed ramjets. Meteor has entered service, beginning with the Swedes. The ramjet AA-12 never went into production, near as I can tell, although it did fine in flight test operational trials.

I spent 2 decades working on a ramjet version of AMRAAM, but USAF fumbled that away to the Europeans in the mid 1990's. Look at Meteor, you can pretty much see what I worked on.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-11-27 20:46:03)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-27 22:13:22

GW Johnson wrote:

Whether Arrow was, or was not, a superior airplane, is no longer germane. It is 6 decades obsolete, no matter what.
I DO NOT agree with the conventional wisdom that only a modern, oversized, two-engine, software-controlled aircraft is the only way to build an effective combat fighter. The F-16 has long disproved that lie.

Now all we need is Mutley!

The General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is a single-engine supersonic multirole fighter aircraft originally developed by General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin) for the United States Air Force (USAF). Designed as an air superiority day fighter, it evolved into a successful all-weather multirole aircraft. Over 4,500 aircraft have been built since production was approved in 1976.[3] Although no longer being purchased by the U.S. Air Force, improved versions are still being built for export customers.[4] In 1993, General Dynamics sold its aircraft manufacturing business to the Lockheed Corporation,[5] which in turn became part of Lockheed Martin after a 1995 merger with Martin Marietta.[6]
In point of fact, I think a 15+ year experienced reserve/national guard pilot could take on anything the west or the east has to offer with their 2-3 year experienced line pilots, and win the engagement, in a Korean-war-vintage F-86 retrofitted to carry underwing Sidewinder and Sparrow-or-AMRAAM missiles, plus a radar detector modified from something civilians can get from Radio Shack. Do NOT delete from that F-86 its guns!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_D … ing_Falcon
The F16 was first produced in 1976 in time for our Nation's bicentennial! You know how old I was a that time? I was 9 years old, now I am 49! In 1976, if I went to an airshow to look at some historical aircraft that were 40 years old, what would I be seeing?

This fighter plane is actually younger than 40 years as of 1976, if I were to go before Congress in 1976 and argue that we should be spending money on P-40 Warhawks instead of F16 Falcons, I'd be laughed off the stage! P40 Warhawks are after all quite a bit cheaper than F16s, we could have put a lot more of those in the sky, and if we made enough of them, we might just overwhelm a handful of 1976 era Soviet Migs while taking tremendous casualties in mass suicide attacks against them, now would you seriously have argued we should have done that?

I have decades of observations to support that contention.
Stealth is way over-rated. Stealth is more about corporate welfare state than it is about air combat. Stealth is frequency-dependent. That which is stealthy and looks like an insect at 100 MHz battlefield frequencies looks like an ocean liner at KHz search-track frequencies. The only real question is pixel resolution: a few miles at KHz frequencies, many meters at 100-MHz frequencies. When visual range is around 10 miles, who cares?

That kind of depends on how much you value the lives of those pilots flying those airplanes, if you think they are expendable and easily replaced, you give them cheap airplanes to save money!

You do not need F-35 to defeat Su-35 or Mig-31. You need experienced pilots who know what the f**k they are doing, with the minimal airplane credible in the field. We have known that since WW1, from the Red Baron, who said it's not the machine, it's the man.

manfred_von_richthofen___the_red_baron___by_ron_cole_by_colesaircraft-d5q7tjm.jpg
And you know what happened to the Red Baron during World War I?

He was shot down by British ground fire while flying one of these! Now how easy was the Red Baron to replace?

All you need from the machine today is Mach near 1, missiles plus guns, maneuverability to ~ 6 gee, durability, and a radar warning receiver.
Sorry if I popped some cherished bubbles, but what I say is quite demonstrably true.
GW

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-11-27 22:23:49)

kbd512 · 2016-11-27 22:30:23

RobertDyck wrote:

I'm tired of debating with children. Bully, bully, bully, then when the person you try to bully doesn't back down, accuse your would-be victim of being a child. You are nothing but a kindergarten bully. I have better things to do.

Canada can spend whatever Canada wants to spend on Canada's military and the US can spend whatever we want to on our military.

If you really have better things to do, then why are you responding to my posts?

RobertDyck wrote:

I tried to quote facts. Not opinion, but actual numbers with quoted sources to back them up. But that's how adults debate, you wouldn't understand that.

You tried to provide your opinion about what the US should spend on its military. Your opinion on US military spending carries as much weight with Americans as the defense spending agreements Canada signed as a member of NATO does with Canadians.

RobertDyck wrote:

You're right, people *DO* listen to me. I have achieved some significant accomplishments. I should relish in that, instead of wasting my time with you.

For some reason, you still thought it necessary to waste your time responding to someone you've never met. If your time is so important to you, then why not spend it on something more productive than an argument about something you've no say in, whatsoever?

For everyone else reading along here, this is the real reason the US's financial problems:

The US federal government spends 79 cents of every dollar it spends on entitlement programs. It spends just 18 cents of every dollar it spends on the US military. Starting in FY2017, if the US military was completely eliminated from the US federal budget, there would still be a deficit resulting from US federal government spending.

RobertDyck · 2016-11-27 23:47:07

And if you want real numbers, with sources to back them up...
US federal budget poster for 2016. Click image for full view 6,000x4,000 pixel resolution. No thumbnail, it's the full thing.

And if you want to purchase the poster... Timeplots - Death and Taxes 2016

Original source they get the numbers from is the Congressional Budget Office. This poster shows the budget for the Department of Defence is $585.3 billion, Department of Energy - Atomic Energy Defense Activities $19.001 billion. Total Military/National Security is $625 billion, which is 54% of Federal Discretionary Budget.

This center circle is the discretionary budget: spending that Congress must approve every year. Your federal income taxes primarily fund the discretionary budget, which then funds all departments within the feeral government. Unlike Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which are funded by separate taxes, the discretionary budget reveals our national priorities in a unique way.
The discretionary budget fluctuates every year according to the wishes of the president, the power of Congress, and the will of the people.

kbd512 · 2016-11-28 01:23:17

GW Johnson wrote:

Kbd512:
I really think you misunderstood what I said, or you reversed it with "conventional" filters. Similar capabilities doesn't matter. Only adequate capabilities. If the aircraft capabilities are in the least adequate for the more experienced pilot, then statistically he will win. Period. Only what constitutes adequate capabilities has changed through time, and not since 1950's Korea.
In von Richthoven's day (circa 1917), a "credible" airplane flew ~80 mph, maneuvered at 3-4 gees, had only guns, and was only observable visually around 10 miles max. Not even von Richthoven himself, had the experience I predicate.

What's your definition of a credible airplane, circa 2016?

GW Johnson wrote:

RobertDyck:
Today, high speed cruise capability is of little value because your KHz-frequency long-range search-track radar already knows approximately where the threat is and which way it is headed. So only dogfight transonic capability is of any real significance, and that only against another fighter. Depending upon exactly where you base your interceptors, higher speed capability is of little-to-no effective use against penetrating bombers. All you need to be is "in the way", as long as your weapons are supersonic. That can be done with Mach 0.4 T-33's from 1945.

High speed cruise is a useful feature for an attack aircraft to have, assuming it can maintain that speed for any significant period of time - the Avro Arrow did not qualify in that regard, but surface-to-air missiles are generally more useful for interception of subsonic and supersonic bombers. The missiles are substantially more cost-effective than supersonic interceptors for access denial, can get from Point A to Point B faster than any interceptor, and ground based radars can be and typically are substantially more powerful and sophisticated than airborne radar systems.

When you're trying to circumvent IADS to conduct a strike on a defended target, the window for your adversary to employ weapons against you can be vanishingly small with enough speed, distance, and/or altitude. Modern mobile IADS make target fixes far more difficult to obtain and their employment envelopes can be so large as to make defended targets inaccessible to fourth generation tactical aircraft.

GW Johnson wrote:

Kdb512:
It's only hard to find a stealth aircraft if radar is your only means. KHz radar can get you close enough to find the SOB visually. Once you find him visually, why should you care what the software and the radar says? Your weapons should be good enough to attack him, no matter what your radar and your software say.

During a cloudy night in Europe, radar systems may very well be the only means to locate inbound aircraft. If the best your ground intercept system can do is get your fighters within a few miles of a stealth aircraft, that's still not nearly good enough. What weapons would you use to attack a stealth fighter in that scenario? The Iraqis attempted blind firing AAA into the night sky without effect.

GW Johnson wrote:

If they cannot acquire and track within 10 miles range, then what the f**k are we paying for? That's been pretty standard for radar-guided weapons since the 1960's. Which is exactly why linking your weapons to such "advanced" radar and software is a very egregious mistake.

We're paying for the preposition of your first sentence. Our enemies can't fix the exact position of a stealth aircraft to within multiple miles until they are well within weapons range of our F-22's and F-35's. The low observability aspects of our stealth aircraft are not limited to radar, either. It's incorporated into every aspect of the design of the F-22 and F-35.

GW Johnson wrote:

RobertDyck:
High cruise or dash speed is only needed if your KHz search-track radar coverage is really bad (which it never has been), or if your basing is too spread-out over too-wide an area (which could be true, but need not be.) Such speeds are ONLY needed when the engagement converts to a tail chase.
With proper basing dispersal, it NEVER does convert to that tail chase, it remains sort-of head-on, no matter the scenario. All you need on your airplanes is a weapon capable of somewhat-higher supersonic speeds than the penetrating threat. Nearly every air-to-air weapon I ever heard of qualifies. No matter how old or primitive.

Running away from an aircraft chasing you is generally a very bad idea unless you're trying to provide an ideal target for an IR missile to hit. I have no idea what "proper basing dispersal" is supposed to mean, but a stealth aircraft flown by a competent pilot will either avoid getting close enough to an active emitter to fix his location or employ weapons against the threat before the threat can respond in kind.

GW Johnson wrote:

All:
It's the beyond visual range (BVR) fighter-on-fighter engagement where any of these stealth or speed advantages make any real difference. And neither really has all that much effect; it's the weapon that makes the real difference. What you want is very high weapon speed at terminal conditions, so as to ensure outmaneuvering the target by 3n + 6, AND shorter flight times to that engagement (higher average weapon speeds). The shorter flight time determines who can turn and run, or engage other targets, first.
That cannot be done with a rocket, or even a pulse motor rocket. It can be done with nothing more than a rocket-boosted ramjet-powered weapon. Like Meteor. Or the ramjet version of the Russian R-77/AA-12. Both are "wooden-round" solid gas generator-fed ramjets. Meteor has entered service, beginning with the Swedes. The ramjet AA-12 never went into production, near as I can tell, although it did fine in flight test operational trials.
I spent 2 decades working on a ramjet version of AMRAAM, but USAF fumbled that away to the Europeans in the mid 1990's. Look at Meteor, you can pretty much see what I worked on.
GW

I think the term BVR gets thrown around a lot without most people understanding exactly what that means. At night, you can be BVR throughout the entire engagement. If you can't visually identify targets, you have to rely on sensors to find the targets for you. If the performance of your sensors is severely degraded by the low observability aspects of adversary aircraft, you have a major problem.

GW Johnson · 2016-11-28 10:39:27

Credible airplane: military power Mach ~1, 6-8 gees, guns and missiles, radar warning. Single engine, so to be small and maneuverable with minimal computerized control. Statically stable stick-fixed, statically unstable stick-free.

Good airplane: all of “credible airplane” PLUS give it 8-9 gees, plus supersonic dash speeds. Add a good radar for searching out targets in low visibility conditions. Supersonic speed isn’t for cruise or intercept, it’s for running away. Too fuel-consumptive to use for anything but fast climb and running away.

Really good airplane: either of those two flown by a reserve or national guard pilot with 15+ years of experience in type, or at least in similar types.

Most airplane-on-airplane fighter engagements take place within 10 miles range, which is why we went to such trouble with AMRAAM to build a radar-guided missile with a goes-autonomous range that large. Previous generations like Sparrow went autonomous at only 2 or 3 miles range.

In daylight and decent weather, 10 miles is also visual range.

It’s difficult to reject countermeasure chaff except by blink-and-coast, taking advantage of the kinematics of chaff clouds left behind very fast by the airplane. Towed radar decoys defeat that. USN has one.

Until the missile goes autonomous, the aircraft must fly toward the target painting it with the aircraft radar so that the missile seeker can “see” the target. During all of this time, the launch aircraft is very vulnerable, and unable to turn and engage other targets. Hence the push toward longer goes-autonomous ranges.

Infrared-guided missiles are autonomous at launch, inherently, but also rather short range, around 2 miles max. It varies a little from system to system. The biggest innovation with them is high off-axis seeker gimballing to engage crossing targets. The next biggest innovation is staring array seeker technology. If you add two-color, it’s easier to reject countermeasure flares. Otherwise, it’s the same blink-and-coast. Towed IR decoys defeat that, but nobody has one.

IR jammers aren’t much use any more. They defeat AM con scan seekers, but not FM con scan. Does nothing but draw in staring array imaging threats.

If you’re close enough to use IR, and it’s daylight and at least sort-of decent weather, you are close enough to do a visual gun attack. We learned in Vietnam it was a mistake to build combat aircraft without guns. We had to retrofit the Phantom with them. Too many believed the self-delusion of the late 50’s that only missiles would ever be used, now that there were missiles. That certainly turned out to be BS.

So don’t believe the hype and conventional wisdom of government lab heads and corporate marketeers. It’s full of more BS than political campaigns, even this last one. And THAT’s saying something!

I quite agree that intercepting incoming bombers is better done with high-supersonic/low-hypersonic missiles. They need to be really long range. Works better if third party guidance can be involved. The 1950’s classic was the rocket-ramjet Bomarc-B, which would intercept descending from 70,000+ feet at about Mach 3, some 300-400 miles from launch. (Same is true of Navy battle groups at sea.)

Now THAT’s an interceptor! Just needs to be modernized a tad with solid state electronics and third-party guidance. I’d raise its intercept speed on descent to about Mach 4 or 5. I’d use ramjet with an integral booster to keep the long range, but reduce the size and cost of the system and its launchers.

If you do that job from an airplane instead, the Meteor is your best weapon choice. Range as high as 60 miles, average speed just about Mach 3, and powered-to-intercept at that Mach 3, so it can outmaneuver even a 10+ gee target. You will have to fly with about 10 or 12 miles painting the target until it goes autonomous. ASALM would also have made a good intercept weapon like that, for targets requiring the larger warhead. Mach 4, 80,000 feet, 1000 lb conventional.

Stealth as we know it today is defeated by using a much lower or much higher frequency. Low has large pixel size, high is short range. Hard to package a radar with that capability into an airplane, because it’s going to be big and heavy. You get around that with third party guidance, by the way. Different radars in different airplanes or locations.

But, “natural stealth” is obtained simply by using a smooth shape. And it’s almost as good. The all-aluminum YB-49 of 1947 was both radar and visually very stealthy. Not as extremely low signature as today’s stealth birds, but good enough to be very hard to detect. And, with that approach, (1) you need no weird/expensive /vulnerable materials, (2) you need not compromise your aerodynamics, and (3) your stealth is far less frequency-dependent.

Vulnerable materials impact where you can base. Salt is out.

Compromised aerodynamics forces you to super-sophisticated computer controls with complicated software that has proven expensive to do, impossible to do on time, and unreliable in actual test, time and again.

If your stealth is natural, and not so frequency dependent, then it doesn’t matter whether the enemy is looking with KHz or 100-MHz radar, he will still find it very hard to see you.

GW

RobertDyck · 2016-11-28 18:35:56

kbd512 wrote:

High speed cruise is a useful feature for an attack aircraft to have, assuming it can maintain that speed for any significant period of time - the Avro Arrow did not qualify in that regard, but surface-to-air missiles are generally more useful for interception of subsonic and supersonic bombers. The missiles are substantially more cost-effective than supersonic interceptors for access denial, can get from Point A to Point B faster than any interceptor, and ground based radars can be and typically are substantially more powerful and sophisticated than airborne radar systems.

Actually, the Arrow was specifically designed to supercruise at mach 1.5. Today F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, and PAK-FA are the only aircraft that can match that, and they can't do better. If you look at Wikipedia, you will see specifications for the mark 1. That was a test version only using an old engine. Arrow would have never gone into production like that. To be able to meet Canadian air force requirements, it had to be mark 2. And "supercruise" means flying faster than the speed of sound without afterburners. So it can sustain that speed the entire way from the Canadian Forces Base to interception point. Afterburners have great thrust, but rediculously bad fuel economy; used only for dog fighting. Again, Arrow was capable of mach 2.5 at 50,000 feet in flat level flight when using after burner, or mach 1.5 without.

Missiles? Are you thiking of CIM-10 Bomarc missiles? The US convinced Canada to get those in the early 1960s to replace the Arrow. But they were expensive. And maintaining nuclear warheads was expensive and dangerous. Canada got rid of them by the end of the '60s. And missiles depend on your enemy flying at least somewhat close to your missile installation. Canada is vast, the second largest land area in the world, second only to Russia. Fighters are more flexible.

kbd512 wrote:

When you're trying to circumvent IADS to conduct a strike on a defended target, the window for your adversary to employ weapons against you can be vanishingly small with enough speed, distance, and/or altitude. Modern mobile IADS make target fixes far more difficult to obtain and their employment envelopes can be so large as to make defended targets inaccessible to fourth generation tactical aircraft.

Ok. That's dealing with attack, not defence, but a valid point. So what do you propose?

kbd512 · 2016-11-29 00:31:12

RobertDyck wrote:

Actually, the Arrow was specifically designed to supercruise at mach 1.5. Today F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, and PAK-FA are the only aircraft that can match that, and they can't do better. If you look at Wikipedia, you will see specifications for the mark 1. That was a test version only using an old engine. Arrow would have never gone into production like that. To be able to meet Canadian air force requirements, it had to be mark 2. And "supercruise" means flying faster than the speed of sound without afterburners. So it can sustain that speed the entire way from the Canadian Forces Base to interception point. Afterburners have great thrust, but rediculously bad fuel economy; used only for dog fighting. Again, Arrow was capable of mach 2.5 at 50,000 feet in flat level flight when using after burner, or mach 1.5 without.

Arrow never super cruised at Mach 1.5, Arrow had no advanced fire control system, and Arrow had no fire-and-forget missiles, period. Whatever Arrow would've done or should've done, is irrelevant. Arrow's combat radius was 660km. Attempts to compare the Arrow to the F-22 are just silly or ignorant.

FYI, this is the sort of maintenance nightmare that Canada's Air Force would face if the US sold F-22's to Canada:

U.S. Air Force Tackles Repair To F-22 Stealth Coating

You argued that the F-35 cost too much, but Canada was willing to purchase the obscenely expensive F-22 that lacks some of the critical enhancements that were incorporated into the F-35. The low observability materials incorporated into the F-35's design is more maintainable than the materials incorporated into the F-22 and the cost of those materials is significant. The F-35 is simply a more advanced weapon system in every other aspect not related to raw airframe performance and RCS. The F-35 offers DAS, IRST, a more sophisticated radar, a more sophisticated electronic warfare suite, and sensor fusion. Those capabilities either don't exist for the F-22 or are previous generation technologies.

Send your pilots to Red Flag. Have them fly WVR engagements against the F-35. A Norwegian F-16 pilot who recently transitioned to the F-35 recorded multiple BFM engagements against a F-16. He was able to out-turn, out-climb, out-accelerate, and out-brake the F-16. I've never heard anyone say that the F-16 is not a maneuverable aircraft.

RobertDyck wrote:

Missiles? Are you thiking of CIM-10 Bomarc missiles? The US convinced Canada to get those in the early 1960s to replace the Arrow. But they were expensive. And maintaining nuclear warheads was expensive and dangerous. Canada got rid of them by the end of the '60s. And missiles depend on your enemy flying at least somewhat close to your missile installation. Canada is vast, the second largest land area in the world, second only to Russia. Fighters are more flexible.

I'm thinking of modern SAM's. For some reason, one of us seems stuck in 1959. It's 2016. Welcome to the new century. Missile technology and air defense radars have greatly improved.

RobertDyck wrote:

Ok. That's dealing with attack, not defence, but a valid point. So what do you propose?

Attacks that take advantage of relatively minor increases in speed over what we're capable of with current fighters often make the window for our adversary's air defense systems to respond extraordinarily brief, hence the push for completely automated air defense systems. No no matter which type of interceptor we're talking about, a SAM can be in the air and many miles downrange before an interceptor has left the ground.

As it pertains to air defense using interceptor aircraft, GW kinda explained an important principle of employment. Namely, "Being in the way." What he did not point out is that the time it takes for an intercepting aircraft to "get in the way" is far greater than the time it takes for a missile to "get in the way." This has some important implications. Recall the brief window to effect the outcome of an engagement I mentioned earlier. The defender starts from a position of disadvantage, thus the response time to an attack is critically important to successful air defense. An interceptor sitting on the ground when an attack is initiated may as well be a paperweight. It may intercept and destroy the inbound attack aircraft after it has delivered weapons, but at that point the damage typically has been done.

A surface-to-air missile traveling at 5000kph can cover 100km in one minute twelve seconds. The very best aircrews can scramble in two to three minutes, but the process generally takes about five minutes. Even if they could scramble in one minute, the missile is already tens of miles downrange before the interceptor has left the ground. The interceptor is only scrambled to launch smaller missiles at the inbound threat from a closer distance. Exactly how long can the defender afford to wait for that process to play out?

RobertDyck · 2016-11-29 05:07:51

kbd512 wrote:

Arrow never super cruised at Mach 1.5, Arrow had no advanced fire control system, and Arrow had no fire-and-forget missiles, period.

You keep repeating the same mistakes. I told you several times, Arrow was not the mark 1 prototype using the old engine. That was for testing the airframe only. In fact the mark 1 was capable of supercruise at mach 1.02 but the manager in charge of Arrow did not want to demonstrate supercruise until he had the new engines. So test pilots were restricted to mach 0.98. That was not anything technical, that was political. A decision engineers did not agree with, a decision to ensure funding the complete aircraft. As I said, one pair of new engines was complete. And testing the engines on a static test stand was complete. Final assembly only required 8 more hours of technician time. I would never have gone into production without the new engines, so mark 2 is the production version.

Repeating the claim that it could "only" perform according to official published spec's for mark 1 is stupid, ignorant, and childish. But tell you what, I'll throw you a bone. Fly-by-wire electronics were state-of-the-art for their day, and the Avro Arrow mark 1 did fly in 1958 while the F-16 did not until 1974. So the Arrow had it 16 years before F-16. However, F-16 electronics was 16 years newer. It was that much more advanced. And F-16 electronics have been upgraded since. If Arrow were to go into production today, it would require entirely new electronics. Furthermore, Arrow was built with the latest allows of its day, but modern fighters use light-weight composites. Although Arrow as the most advanced fighter of its time, and achieved performance that only the latest 21st century fighters can barely match, modern fighters are more advanced in other ways. If you look at the weight of the aircraft to bomb load, that ratio is dramatically better on modern fighters. Of course there were proposals while Arrow as under development for a mark 3, proposals that were only on paper. So there were significant upgrades that would have been developed if the aircraft had not been cancelled. The design would never have remained static.

Furthermore, modern delta wing fighters use a canard wing, including Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen. That makes them much more manoeuvrable. Arrow would have used it if it was available in the 1950s, but it wasn't. In fact, early development of Arrow had a problem with wind tunnel tests and tests. Developers initially didn't have access to a wind tunnel capable of speeds fast enough, so they built scale models and fired them on rockets. The problem was first identified on the scale models. Identifying exactly what the problem was required a wind tunnel. The problem with air flow over the delta wing a certain speeds was resolved with a notch in the wing, and a bend at the same location. With a modern canard wing, interaction between the canard and main wing means you don't need the notch or bend.

Actually, Avro aeronautical engineers got jobs in various locations after the company shut down. NASA was given first access, so the brightest engineers were hired by NASA. The Gemini spacecraft was designed entirely by a team of former Avro Arrow engineers. If NASA didn't have them, a team of American engineers would have had to be pulled off Apollo, slowing development of Apollo. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia released a bunch of previously classified files about their space program. One detail was they had finished testing their LK lunar lander in LOE in 1972, were ready to launch to the Moon. But that was 3 years after Apollo 11, too little too late, so their Moon program was scrapped. If NASA did not have those Avro Arrow engineers, Apollo would have been delayed, possibly long enough for Russia to reach the Moon first. There were other Canadian engineers working for NASA, who had not worked for Avro. And some Canadian companies built parts for Apollo. However, Russia wasn't alone either, they had Ukrainian engineers. So the 1960s space race with really American with their allies, primarily Canada, vs Russia and their allies, primarily Ukraine.

Other Avro Arrow engineers got jobs elsewhere. Some worked on the Concord in Europe. Others got jobs for American fighter jet manufacturers. After the Concord, some of those former Avro engineers worked on the Eurofighter Typhoon, others on the Dessault Rafale. So there's a reason these aircraft look like an updated version of the Avro Arrow.

kbd512 wrote:

Send your pilots to Red Flag.

Canada flies CF-18 Hornet aircraft. Pilots are regularly sent to Fighter Weapons School in Miramar, known to Hollywood as "Topgun". Red Flag is the US air force equivalent.

Your arguments about SAM are well reasoned. The Avro Arrow was primarily designed to intercept Russian bombers, at that time the Tu-95 Bear bomber. Now they have Tu-160 White Swan, known to NATO as Blackjack, and the Tu-22M known to NATO as Backfire. Both were designed to cruise at mach 2.0 so I'm not sure if even Arrow could catch them. And since cruise of F-22 is the same, that raises the same concern. Tu-160 was intended to launch cruise missiles, so would only approach North American air space, wouldn't penetrate. However, Tu-22M was designed for a traditional bombing mission.

Another fact you're ignoring is that Canada has the longest coastline of any country in the world. Stationing SAM missiles along the coast would require far to many installations, especially the arctic. GW described a program to develop a long-range missile, but right now missiles use solid rockets. That makes them fast, but limited range. CIM-10 Bomarc missiles used a RAM jet and delta wing for extended range; but as you said, that was developed in the late 1950s. If you want an interceptor to fly from the arctic coast at the border between Yukon and Northwest Territory to an interception point over the centre of Victoria island, that's 1,000km. I don't see how a SAM with a solid rocket could do that. How many SAM installations would your system take?

Of course that still doesn't address attack. How do you defeat a Russian BUK?

kbd512 · 2016-11-29 12:51:49

RobertDyck wrote:

You keep repeating the same mistakes. I told you several times, Arrow was not the mark 1 prototype using the old engine. That was for testing the airframe only. In fact the mark 1 was capable of supercruise at mach 1.02 but the manager in charge of Arrow did not want to demonstrate supercruise until he had the new engines. So test pilots were restricted to mach 0.98. That was not anything technical, that was political. A decision engineers did not agree with, a decision to ensure funding the complete aircraft. As I said, one pair of new engines was complete. And testing the engines on a static test stand was complete. Final assembly only required 8 more hours of technician time. I would never have gone into production without the new engines, so mark 2 is the production version.

You keep ignoring history, Rob. The Arrow never flew with the upgraded engines. You stated as much above. Stop trying to reimagine history as you would like it to have been to support your argument and start dealing with reality.

RobertDyck wrote:

Repeating the claim that it could "only" perform according to official published spec's for mark 1 is stupid, ignorant, and childish. But tell you what, I'll throw you a bone. Fly-by-wire electronics were state-of-the-art for their day, and the Avro Arrow mark 1 did fly in 1958 while the F-16 did not until 1974. So the Arrow had it 16 years before F-16. However, F-16 electronics was 16 years newer. It was that much more advanced. And F-16 electronics have been upgraded since. If Arrow were to go into production today, it would require entirely new electronics. Furthermore, Arrow was built with the latest allows of its day, but modern fighters use light-weight composites. Although Arrow as the most advanced fighter of its time, and achieved performance that only the latest 21st century fighters can barely match, modern fighters are more advanced in other ways. If you look at the weight of the aircraft to bomb load, that ratio is dramatically better on modern fighters. Of course there were proposals while Arrow as under development for a mark 3, proposals that were only on paper. So there were significant upgrades that would have been developed if the aircraft had not been cancelled. The design would never have remained static.

Repeating the claim that an aircraft / engine combination that never flew would be capable of "X" level of performance is what is stupid, ignorant, and childish. Ignore what actually happened, reimagine history to support your argument - no matter what mental gyrations you have to go through, and call other people names if they point out what actually happened. You're a poster child for liberalism.

RobertDyck wrote:

Furthermore, modern delta wing fighters use a canard wing, including Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen. That makes them much more manoeuvrable. Arrow would have used it if it was available in the 1950s, but it wasn't. In fact, early development of Arrow had a problem with wind tunnel tests and tests. Developers initially didn't have access to a wind tunnel capable of speeds fast enough, so they built scale models and fired them on rockets. The problem was first identified on the scale models. Identifying exactly what the problem was required a wind tunnel. The problem with air flow over the delta wing a certain speeds was resolved with a notch in the wing, and a bend at the same location. With a modern canard wing, interaction between the canard and main wing means you don't need the notch or bend.

Employment of control surfaces in mechanically advantageous positions on the airframe makes delta wing fighters more maneuverable.

Canards were available to aerodynamicists since the Wright brothers made their first flight.

RobertDyck wrote:

Actually, Avro aeronautical engineers got jobs in various locations after the company shut down. NASA was given first access, so the brightest engineers were hired by NASA. The Gemini spacecraft was designed entirely by a team of former Avro Arrow engineers. If NASA didn't have them, a team of American engineers would have had to be pulled off Apollo, slowing development of Apollo. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia released a bunch of previously classified files about their space program. One detail was they had finished testing their LK lunar lander in LOE in 1972, were ready to launch to the Moon. But that was 3 years after Apollo 11, too little too late, so their Moon program was scrapped. If NASA did not have those Avro Arrow engineers, Apollo would have been delayed, possibly long enough for Russia to reach the Moon first. There were other Canadian engineers working for NASA, who had not worked for Avro. And some Canadian companies built parts for Apollo. However, Russia wasn't alone either, they had Ukrainian engineers. So the 1960s space race with really American with their allies, primarily Canada, vs Russia and their allies, primarily Ukraine.

The Russians cancelled their lunar program because their moon rockets kept exploding.

RobertDyck wrote:

Other Avro Arrow engineers got jobs elsewhere. Some worked on the Concord in Europe. Others got jobs for American fighter jet manufacturers. After the Concord, some of those former Avro engineers worked on the Eurofighter Typhoon, others on the Dessault Rafale. So there's a reason these aircraft look like an updated version of the Avro Arrow.

Ok.

RobertDyck wrote:

Canada flies CF-18 Hornet aircraft. Pilots are regularly sent to Fighter Weapons School in Miramar, known to Hollywood as "Topgun". Red Flag is the US air force equivalent.

US Navy Fighter Weapons School (a school) and Red Flag (an exercise) are two entirely different programs with different objectives.

RobertDyck wrote:

Your arguments about SAM are well reasoned. The Avro Arrow was primarily designed to intercept Russian bombers, at that time the Tu-95 Bear bomber. Now they have Tu-160 White Swan, known to NATO as Blackjack, and the Tu-22M known to NATO as Backfire. Both were designed to cruise at mach 2.0 so I'm not sure if even Arrow could catch them. And since cruise of F-22 is the same, that raises the same concern. Tu-160 was intended to launch cruise missiles, so would only approach North American air space, wouldn't penetrate. However, Tu-22M was designed for a traditional bombing mission.

Sometimes I wonder about what civilians think about how military aircraft, or even commercial aircraft actually work, although from your statements I guess I'm receiving an "education". Any aircraft designed to travel at supersonic speeds guzzles fuel and will be, for all intents and purposes, a flying gas tank. Neither the Tu-22M nor the Tu-160 were designed to cruise above Mach 1 for any substantial period of time, although both are capable of supersonic dashes into the target area to deliver weapons.

RobertDyck wrote:

Another fact you're ignoring is that Canada has the longest coastline of any country in the world. Stationing SAM missiles along the coast would require far to many installations, especially the arctic. GW described a program to develop a long-range missile, but right now missiles use solid rockets. That makes them fast, but limited range. CIM-10 Bomarc missiles used a RAM jet and delta wing for extended range; but as you said, that was developed in the late 1950s. If you want an interceptor to fly from the arctic coast at the border between Yukon and Northwest Territory to an interception point over the centre of Victoria island, that's 1,000km. I don't see how a SAM with a solid rocket could do that. How many SAM installations would your system take?

Modern SAM's can provide greater coverage, per dollar spent, than an equivalent number of interceptor aircraft. More importantly, SAM's can reach targets fast enough to effect the outcome of an adversary's attack. If you had missile batteries in the Northwest Territory, then you don't need SAM's that can fly 1000km. You're trying to artificially engineer an unreasonable requirement for a missile to meet.

I can either fly an Arrow 900km at Mach 2 to engage a bomber or station Mach 4 Patriot missile batteries in the Northwest Territory that only have to fly, say, 200km to reach their targets. Hmm...

If you have six systems per 1000km of coastline, with 16 missiles per system, that $192M. Three Super Hornets cost $183M, but then you have to arm them, fuel them, maintain them, and train their pilots and maintainers. You'll surpass that $192M for the Patriot missile batteries just by arming the Super Hornets with an equivalent number of AIM-120's. You're the one who wanted to spend less on defense and I'm providing a reasonable alternative way of doing that which actually defends the Canadian coastline from aerial attack and uses the kind of systems we can manufacture right now.

RobertDyck wrote:

Of course that still doesn't address attack. How do you defeat a Russian BUK?

Between being a BUK missile system operator or a F-35 pilot, I can tell you which machine I want to show up to that fight with.

GW Johnson · 2016-11-29 13:46:45

What was big and expensive in the 1950's could be much smaller and more affordable today. If I were to revisit the old Bomarc ramjet SAM mission, I'd start my redesign from ASALM. In its air-to-surface form, ASALM pushed 1000 lb conventional a few hundred nautical miles, or the lighter dial-a-yield nuke about 1200 nmi. That's close to 2200 km, by the way. It did this cruising Mach 4 at 80,000 feet. That's about 1.2 km/sec = 4300 kph.

Given some third party guidance from ground radar installations, any aircraft that are up, and even satellites, that sort of fast missile should easily be able to get in the way of an incoming bomber, almost regardless of its flight speed, even at Mach 2 dash.

Traveling at speeds like that, the missile doesn't need a warhead if a contact hit is certain. Since that cannot be certain, just put a big blast/frag warhead on it, maybe something around 100-200 lb. Big kill radius. Low weight does not compromise the range the way the 1000 lb surface attack warhead did.

ASALM was the weaponized design for the ASALM-PTV flight test vehicle I helped work on. It was 14 feet long, 20 inches diameter, 2500 lb when it came out from under the wing. A surface SAM version wouldn't be a lot larger, since ASALM was intended to launch at speeds as low as 200 KIAS. Mostly simple stainless steel construction for airframe and inlet hardware. Kerosene fuel, solid propellant integral booster. Silicone combustor ablative liner, silica-phenolic ramjet nozzle.

You’d need better heat protection for airframe and inlet hardware to fly faster steady-state, but one ASALM-PTV reached Mach 6 in the troposphere in a test flight. It set the speed record, by accident, for any airbreathing engine powered vehicle when that happened. Back then, the only thing faster (and only a little faster) was the X-15 rocket plane. Ask me about that incident sometime!

Also, some time ask me how we case-bonded an HTPB propellant to a silicone ramjet liner, and got 20+ year shelf life with zero chemical migration on a system qualified from -65F to 145 F. You will not believe the truth.

ASALM-PTV flew hanging from the inboard underwing pylons of A-7 and F-111 aircraft. I have the photos to prove it. 3 seconds launch to ramjet takeover at Mach 2.5. 100 milliseconds to transition from rocket to ramjet thrust. Ejectable booster nozzle, frangible inlet port cover. Mag flare ramjet ignition. Started out with RJ-5 synthetic fuel, ended up with RJ-6 as the Navy's SLAT drone. RJ-5 had freezepoint problems that were tactically unacceptable.

Strategic air defense over Canada just need not be as hard as it is made out to be. ASALM was a 1978 incarnation of "modern ramjet technology". The first such integral booster bird was "Kub"/SA-6 "Gainful" 1966 or 1967 (May Day parade 1967). The second was the USN ALVRJ 1974. "Sunburn", "Krypton" and "Oniks/Yakhont" all use the same integral booster ramjet technologies today, as does Europe's "Meteor".

As I said about the aluminum YB-49, you do not have to have fancy, vulnerable, expensive materials to achieve stealth. Nor do you have to compromise your aerodynamics to achieve it. The old B-47 Stratojet was sort-of semi-stealthy, because its fuselage was rounded, not slab-sided like the B-52. And there was a version of the F-16 with a slightly-revised inlet lip, and an odd canopy material, that was substantially stealthy, enough to need only a towed reflective ribbon decoy, not the hard-body towed repeater the Navy currently has.

GW

elderflower · 2016-11-29 15:24:39

A lot of the stealth is compromised when you put weaponry under the wings, and if you don't it is compromised as soon as you open the weapons bay doors. So you could sneak up on someone (provided they didn't have modern IR detection equipment) but you cant say "Boo".

GW Johnson · 2016-11-29 16:03:10

True enough, Elderflower.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-29 20:26:24

elderflower wrote:

A lot of the stealth is compromised when you put weaponry under the wings, and if you don't it is compromised as soon as you open the weapons bay doors. So you could sneak up on someone (provided they didn't have modern IR detection equipment) but you cant say "Boo".

What if you just put a bomb inside of it and had it explode unmanned?

kbd512 · 2016-11-29 23:47:46

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

What if you just put a bomb inside of it and had it explode unmanned?

Like this? AGM-129

Hanging stores off the wings increases RCS, but proper design of the pylons (see the new pylons for the Super Hornet and F-35), the stores themselves (AIM-9X), and a little RAM (pylons and wings) can do wonders. Although RCS is important for low-observability, maintaining a clean airframe also pays off in other ways.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2016-11-26 17:12:30

Re: Politics

#252 2016-11-27 04:49:17

Re: Politics

#253 2016-11-27 08:20:23

Re: Politics

#254 2016-11-27 13:50:46

Re: Politics

#255 2016-11-27 16:06:05

Re: Politics

#256 2016-11-27 16:23:36

Re: Politics

#257 2016-11-27 17:39:20

Re: Politics

#258 2016-11-27 19:01:29

Re: Politics

#259 2016-11-27 19:06:31

Re: Politics

#260 2016-11-27 19:16:02

Re: Politics

#261 2016-11-27 19:43:04

Re: Politics

#262 2016-11-27 22:13:22

Re: Politics

#263 2016-11-27 22:30:23

Re: Politics

#264 2016-11-27 23:47:07

Re: Politics

#265 2016-11-28 01:23:17

Re: Politics

#266 2016-11-28 10:39:27

Re: Politics

#267 2016-11-28 18:35:56

Re: Politics

#268 2016-11-29 00:31:12

Re: Politics

#269 2016-11-29 05:07:51

Re: Politics

#270 2016-11-29 12:51:49

Re: Politics

#271 2016-11-29 13:46:45

Re: Politics

#272 2016-11-29 15:24:39

Re: Politics

#273 2016-11-29 16:03:10

Re: Politics

#274 2016-11-29 20:26:24

Re: Politics

#275 2016-11-29 23:47:46

Re: Politics

Board footer