Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

I'm guessing the big V.L.S. pits dug into the foredecks of the 280s may have (probably) increased stresses elsewhere. There is less material up there to spread loads, so what is left is bearing more.

Also, as obscure as this sounds, a square or rectangular hole makes that deck considerably weaker than a round or oval hole would have ... a stretch, yes but that is the sort of thing that could increase stresses elsewhere in a welded monocoque hull like that. After close to a half a century of operations all over the world, they are in remarkably good shape, really.

   

Well put!

   

And I thought what I proposed would do a hell of a lot for the military. Really bulking it up. It means the air wing for Resolute, when fully equipped for an action, would be equivalent to an American supercarrier. We already have 5 Hercules cargo planes fitted with fuel tanks to be mid-air refuelling tankers for CF-18 fighters. With refuelling, the range of a CF-18 from Resolute is the entire arctic. And a torpedo can't sink an island, so Resolute would be that much tougher than a supercarrier. With two icebreakers that can be fitted to be frigates, and operational submarines, that means the entire supercarrier battle group. No missile cruisers, but everything else.

By the way, F-35 aircraft are not a major upgrade from CF-18. Their performance isn't good, neither is their stealth. Russian BUK missile system includes a vehicle with "battle radar". That's one vehicle with a very long antenna, specifically to lock onto a target high performance aircraft. The long antenna is for low frequency radar. It can easily detect and lock onto an F-35. The images we saw from Ukraine claimed the rebels captured a BUK missile launcher with 4 missiles and self-contained radar. That radar cannot lock onto a stealth plane, but the separate battle radar can. And reports from Ukraine indicate reinforcements from Russia includes the complete BUK system, complete with battle radar. So what good is F-35?

The Canadian air force issued requirements in 1953 for an all weather interceptor. The Avro Arrow was built to meet and exceed those requirements. The only aircraft today that can meet those requirements are: F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Russian T-50. The T-50 is a prototype, production aircraft is said to be PAK FA. T-50 flight tests started January 2010, production aircraft are scheduled for introduction December 2016. But Russia certainly won't sell us their leading edge fighters. American won't sell us any F-22. So that just leaves the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Dassault Rafale is close, but Canadian requirement in 1953 included supercruise at mach 1.5; Rafale can only supercruise at mach 1.02. But getting Typhoon or Rafale means 1950s technology. Yea, updated, but still only meeting performance specs for Avro Arrow.

   

We don't really need to base a major force in the Arctic. Yes the Russians are pressing their claims, but they are doing so legally, through UNCLOS, not by way of military force.

Actually, the F-35s ARE an upgrade over the CF-18. Just their stealth aspects alone constitute a major upgrade over the F-35. It's electronics and inter-operability are also superior to the CF-18. Given the low possibility of fighting the Russians on our own, it's not really a concern about how effective the BUK system is. In a major conflict, Western SAM suppression units (AKA Wild Weasels), would likely eliminate/weaken any threat they might pose before we sent our planes in. Even if they didn't, losses are an unfortunate side effect of conflict - as hard as that sounds, soldiers, sailors and pilots are fully aware of the possibility of not coming home.

But I'll stack our professionals up against any other potential adversary and be comfortable knowing ours will prevail most of the time, due to their equipment and even more important, training.

My only problem is that the F-35 is single engine, which if we're going to use it to patrol the Arctic, it's crazy to use a single engine plane over such a vast and unforgiving territory with so few landing strips.

I don't understand why you seem to be hung up on specs from the 1950s, they are no more relevant than our 1950s naval requirements (which is why the Halifaxes are very different from the St. Laurents). Warfare and national strategy evolves and as such, so do the specs for what our nation needs to defend itself.

The RCAF does not envision a future of intercepting nuclear-armed Backfire bombers over the Arctic, so almost all of those requirements are useless. Not only that, the Arrow, super-expensive and beautiful plane that she was, was an interceptor, not a multi-role aircraft like either the CF-18 or F-35. Given our limited budget (no matter who is in charge apparently), we need a multi-role plane, not a single use aircraft like the F-22/Arrow.

That's why something like the F-35 or Typhoon is more in line with what we need, not an updated version of the Avro Arrow.

   

Actually, it is. The BUK system is like a high tech version of the AK-47. Not in it's capabilities obviously but because it's probably Russia's most exported piece of military hardware after the AK.

I dunno about this "battle radar" that Winnipegger is talking about though. I can't find anything that suggests it's capable of defeating the F-35's stealth technology.

   

The BUK system AFAIK can use multiple radars, say one for search and one for targeting/guidance.

My understanding may be simplistic, but my take on it is that a search radar (operating at longer wavelengths) has the ability to detect say the F-35 at a significant range. Where it becomes tough for the BUK is that the guidance radar for the missiles (using shorter wavelengths and a tighter beam) has a much more difficult time with it.

Seeing the stealth jet on radar is one thing, getting a radar lock on it is something else.

   

Remember when there were a few folks trying to sell the idea as a valid alternative?

   

My knowledge is what PostFactum posted, and interviews on TV and the internet with the designer of the F-16, and a the local chapter of the Mars Society had a young lady who stated she is an international student from Ukraine. This young university student says she's from Kyiv; attended the last meeting. A beautiful university girl from Ukraine showed up at a local meeting? Sounds fishy. But all this information tells me several things about the BUK system.

It includes several vehicles. Each the size of a tank, and using a tank body but different turrets.
- a launcher with 8 missiles
- a "battle radar" capable of locking onto a target, and using radio to relay target coordinates to the missile while in flight
- a launcher with 4 missiles, and integrated radar that can lock onto a target, but not able to see "stealth" aircraft.
- a "scanning radar" capable of detecting all aircraft in the area, and identifying what each aircraft is. Whether it is a combat fighter, military transport, or commercial airliner.

The rebels in east Ukraine had captured from the Ukrainian military a single vehicle with 4 missiles and integrated radar. It was able to target an aircraft that doesn't have stealth, and shoot it down. That was used to shoot down Malaysian airlines flight MA17.

   

Meh, if it's like most Russian equipment, it's a couple years behind us and while it might give us problems initially in an intervention, Western pilots would very quickly work out methods to deal with them. Tack on the poor training most end users will likely have and I'm not too worried about it being that big a problem.

   

Wikipedia: BUK missile system


This is what PostFactum called the "Battle Radar". Wikipedia calls it "A Buk-M1-2 SAM system 9S18M1-1 Tube Arm target acquisition radar (TAR) on 2005 MAKS Airshow".



This guy doesn't like F-35. He does talk about a lot of obsolete crap. He doesn't like modern fighters, he only likes the F-16 that he developed. But skip to 6:00 into the interview. Listen to what he says about Russian radar.

   

They "may" be able to see it... but can they lock onto it?

   

That's the point of the radar vehicle. They use radio to communicate with their big missile while it's in the air. They lock on, and destroy the stealth aircraft. The only way to prevent that, is to destroy the radar vehicle.

   

The radars that operate at longer wavelengths may be suitable for detection but are not sufficient for missile guidance.

Even if the jet got close enough for the guidance radar to work, the jet has countermeasures (chaff).

   

Doesn't normal wave-length guidance radar work at very close range? So the long-wavelength stuff only need work until the missile is close enough for its on-board equipment. I'm not saying it's impossible to defend against, but don't underestimate it. And don't think stealth is all that great.

Of course a Boeing 777 doesn't have chaff.

   

The missiles are semi-active radar homing (beam riding). Without illumination from a ground based radar, from launch to impact, the missile is useless.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next