Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6

Still a beautiful aircraft...

   

I think you will find that south korea does have more influence with the US when it comes to military affairs. Their troops are constantly stationed with ours and have the respect of our forces as well as the capabilities to fend for themselves.



Sorry hate to break this to you, but the korean navy could take on the canadian navy and win. With 9 highly effective submarines, 5 modern destroyers equipped with top of the line NATO equipment, 9 front line capable frigates, an amphibious assault/helo carrier and a potential aircraft carrier on the way


Certainly some of the others are merely purchasing out of the scrapyard of europe in an attempt to bolster an ineffective military



A few frigates are the primary strength of the canadian navy, after that all they have a few disasters of submarines, and a couple of aging destroyers.



Meanwhile even South Korea can work with US forces and honestly claim that they'll be able to take a beachhead... While canada will be relegated to mere reinforcements after the fight is over.



It requires a well trained military force, and if your going to train them, you may as well equip them effectively.



An amphibious group changes the navy from being seperated from simply sitting offshore and watching whichever crisis is unfolding and allowing them to actually change it.

   

Well the good news is that we've replaced the Iltis with the G-Wagon. The bad news is that if Harper hadn't called the stupid election, the Liberals would have been able to acquire more new aircraft for the CF...Instead they were only able to order a few things.










And we need to boost our strength in numbers.....

   

thrust vectoring engines, then we'll have superb manuverability, which is what everyone was harping about. And i'm sticking with my comments a few months ago that the avro could be made into atleast a partially stealth aircraft. back when they were testing it general radar couldn't pick it up nless they knew what they were looking for. Today it would likely not be seen if its anymore than 75 miles away from the nearest station, while things like the F-18 are seen up too 500 miles away. with canadas superior robotic and computic tech. we can prolly turn her into multi-role aswell. she has more than enough space for ground attack weapons.

   

A modern Arrow would have alot more range. With modern electronic to replace all that tubing ect it would free up alot of space.

The MK2 Arrow was speculated to have super cruise capability

Plus it could hit max speed with a full weapons load. I like to see an F14, F15, F16 or F18 do that with all the missles and bombs adding lots of drag.

The Arrow wasn't a perfect aircraft but it was very good, very fast, very pretty and Canadian

   

Of course they have plenty of influence on the Korean peninsula, but practically nowhere else. Canada had much more influence than Korea in Bosnia, Haiti and Afghanistan to name a few places. How come you didn't hear Bush talking about how nice it would have been to have had Korean snipers or a light infantry battalion in Iraq? Yes, Korea did sent a force of 3000 or so, but that didn't give them any extra influence in US troop deployment. In fact, the US is pulling troops out of Korea for deployment elsewhere.




Our destroyers and frigates are also top of the line. The destroyers may have been built 30 years ago, but underwent a refit in the 1990s, and the frigates are almost as powerful, with SAMs, Harpoons, CIWS, etc. Once the bugs get worked out of the Victorias, they'll be a match for most SSKs on the planet.








If there was a real need for Canadian troops to stage an amphibious assault, it would happen. But as I already said, there hasn't been a real need for an amphibious assault in decades, so why spend money on a 'hope' that they might have to. We're better off spending on needs that exist now, like strategic airlift.

   

Considering Korea is still in a state of war the fact that the US military respects them and routinely trains along side them gives them a lot more influence.



The troop removal the Koreans have been fairly ambivalent about, the carrier groups are still in the area as are the main forces and aircraft. Simply fewer men. And in the end the US troops were mainly there to ensure that the US as a whole would be engaged in any military conflict. You don't need a full strength battalion to do that.



The korean vessels meanwhile not only have more surface combatants, also have the next generation RAM system the US has developed in addition to the arguably more advanced Goalkeeper CIWS. With the same harpoons, and the same seasparrows...



The idea of maintaining an amphibious group is that when a crisis is brewing in some distant corner of the world that canada doesn't need to wait for the US to find action in its best interests, then secure a beachhead and then allow canadian troops to enter. But that simply canadian troops will be ready to deploy either through helicopter or amphibious assualt. So whether trouble is brewing near the shore or quite a ways inland, canada would be able to deploy without praying for a friendly airport.

   

Has S. Korean ships ever been apart of an American Carrier Battle Group? No they haven't, but Canadian ships have and with the same access to American satellites etc... The fact that the US is willing to let a Canadian frigate take the place of one of its ships says a lot.

I'm willing to bet that if you were to ask an American soldier who they would prefer to have as a soldier standing next to them, a Canadian or S. Korean; hands down the soldier will say a Canadian. You brought up the fact that the US trains with S. Korea, but they also train with Canada.

Here are some of the facts:

- Almost everyday Canadian personnel are training with the US.
- In some way everyday, both militaries interact.
- Personnel from both militaries are on exchange programs.
- Canada has people stationed at the pentagon and US Central Command, which has run all operations in the last 15 years, and until a couple of years ago was the only command the US had that could control and communicate with any battle taking place anywhere in the world.
- NORAD
- NATO
- Post Korean War to present, how many operations of any kind has S. Korea been involved in compared to Canada? That's right; Canadian Forces personnel have been much more active with more time in the field.
- Canada's combat and peacekeeping record speaks volumes.
- Canada has been an ally of the US far longer than S. Korea.
- The economic relationship between the two countries.
- The US tried to get Canada onboard for the war in Iraq from the get go, and were pissed when Canada opted to stay out. I guess if Canada joined in, many more countries would have thought it to be a worthy cause.

When it comes down to it, the only place where S. Korea has any influence is in their own backyard. Of course it doesn't matter much anyways since they are America's bitch. I've spoken with US military personnel stationed in S. Korea, and they say S. Korea is losing its culture. Right now the US has an interest in that part of the world. When it disappears, you watch how fast the US will care about what the S. Koreans think.

Don't need a full strength battalion? Do you even know how many soldiers make up a battalion? Depending on what type of battalion your looking at, they can have anywhere from 300 to 1000 soldiers.

   

SuperCruise is an American term that means shit.... excuse my french. THe arrow had the capability, the Lightning could do the same.... The Americans coudn't do it until the F22.

   

As was stated, Canada was moving to a single multi-role fighter. At the time, Canada was interested in the F-14A, but at the end of the day the F-14A was still only a fighter. The hornet suits Canada's needs nicely, far better than the F-16 ever could. I'm glad Canada didn't opt for the cheaper ticket, and paid more for a better aircraft. The hornet was made for the USN/USMC, and so its a tough bird that can take a beating which is great for our environment. As was mentioned, Canada's history of favoring multiple engines favored the hornet also.

F-16 or F/A-18?
Comes down to the pilot. To contradict someone who posted earlier, the legacy hornet turns tighter.

Canada does not have a carrier role in mind for its hornet pilots. Some are carrier capable, but that's because they've been on exchange tours with the USN and USMC. UN? Never going to happen.

   

Little know fact.... Canada was looking at Irans used F14s. BUT, After the Canadian Ambasador helped a bunch of Americans to escape Iran. Iran withdrew its offer.

   

Ah the good old days when America loved us. Course I wasn't around then but...

   

Went Canada purchased our Auroras (Canadianized P-3), very ofter the american would request our help to hunt Soviet Subs off the Atlantic coast.

   

IS it just me, or are Canadians very well suited to sub-hunting? Think about it; both world wars, the Cold War.........We're natural sub-hunters.

   

Well, who else knows how to find things in the north atlantic? Greenland? Iceland? not a chance. We've caught nearly every single cod out there, and i bet they're harder to find than a submarine is (well it might be a toss up now)

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6