• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
It's going to take a mix of aircraft, IMO. I guess I'm old school, but to me the fighter is more than a platform to deliver weapons and take/relay pictures.   Think of those Bear bombers of the 60-90's near or over our airspace- it often required an interceptor aircraft flown by an aggressive pilot managed by instinct in those "eyeball to eyeball" situations to resolve the issue without killing. There may be some increased temptation on the part of an aggressor to try and outsmart and deceive the pilotless aircraft that otherwise might not be present in interceptions involving manned aircraft. In order to convey the message to "frig-off-or-I-will-shoot." and then to watch and if necessary, shoot, requires human interaction in close proximity, not by remote control. It would be a mistake to remove the human thought process required to kill in some situations yet in others, many others, it would likely be desirable to remove the human element altogether, especially when attacking property and not people. But when life taking is required, I think it is in all of our best interests to keep a little of that human touch in play, if only for the accountability aspect of it.    

Fast air to ground strike and air to air [fighter on fighter] will likely be a good role for unmanned fighter aircraft when in an actual war or whatever the term of the day may be. Passive surveillance and sensors for unmanned airframes built to that spec. will also be acceptable use of the technology.

Launching to intercept and warn/fend off/defend should always be the role of a manned high performance aircraft with a pilot making the decisions to engage provided the necessary latitude exists to make those decisions.    Give the pilot the weapons to engage a superior performing pilotless aircraft, but taking the pilot out of the battle space and confining him to Play Station warfare in the back of a truck or deep in a bunker is not going to be the answer for all missions of the future and may actually cause unnecessary harm while solving other problems.

There have to be some measurable consequences for war, the only one that seems to really make an impression is the death toll and fear of becoming a casualty statistic in a war- lets not take that away or we will definitely frig up whats left of this planet.
 

daniel h.

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Zoomie said:
Unmanned fighters is most definately the future - when you think about how much weight of a fighter is for life support and crew comfort - a dramatic resizing of future fighters is sure to happen.   Our modern day fighters are stressed to exceed the physical stress that we can put on the human body - by removing the pilot from the equation the aircraft will be far more maneuverable and deadly.


Smaller objects are less capable in some ways.
 

daniel h.

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
whiskey601 said:
It's going to take a mix of aircraft, IMO. I guess I'm old school, but to me the fighter is more than a platform to deliver weapons and take/relay pictures.   Think of those Bear bombers of the 60-90's near or over our airspace- it often required an interceptor aircraft flown by an aggressive pilot managed by instinct in those "eyeball to eyeball" situations to resolve the issue without killing. There may be some increased temptation on the part of an aggressor to try and outsmart and deceive the pilotless aircraft that otherwise might not be present in interceptions involving manned aircraft. In order to convey the message to "frig-off-or-I-will-shoot." and then to watch and if necessary, shoot, requires human interaction in close proximity, not by remote control. It would be a mistake to remove the human thoughtfulness to kill in some situations yet in others, many others, it would likely be desirable to remove the human element altogether, especially when attacking property and not people. But when life taking is required, I think it is in all of our best interests to keep a little of that human touch in play, if only for the accountability aspect of it.    

Fast air to ground strike and air to air [fighter on fighter] will likely be a good role for unmanned fighter aircraft when in an actual war or whatever the term of the day may be. Passive surveillance and sensors for unmanned airframes built to that spec. will also be acceptable use of the technology.

Launching to intercept and warn/fend off/defend should always be the role of a manned high performance aircraft with a pilot making the decisions to engage provided the necessary latitude exists to make those decisions.    Give the pilot the weapons to engage a superior performing pilotless aircraft, but taking the pilot out of the battle space and confining him to Play Station warfare in the back of a truck or deep in a bunker is not going to be the answer for all missions of the future and may actually cause unnecessary harm while solving other problems.

There have to be some measurable consequences for war, the only one that seems to really make an impression is the death toll and fear of becoming a casualty statistic in a war- lets not take that away or we will definitely frig up whats left of this planet.


I completely agree. To me, people who label this attitude "old-fashioned" are missing the point. Sure there will be roles for unmanned aircraft, but we already have the weaponry to do a lot of damage, we might want to use it unless required. We may gain something simply because it is newer, but we very well might not.

This reminds me of George Grant's "Lament for a nation" where he decried the liberal nature of America in building a soceity around "chasing" the newest technology and the asuumption of progressive improvement via the acqustion of better and better technology.

The reality is for most human beings life is hard enough, and while we are forced to keep up to defend ourselves from competitive opponents, we still do live in a human society whether liberal technocrats like it or not.

The idea that we will need large numbers of unmanned aircraft for interception ignores the fact that most nations cannot even afford even out of date aircraft, and with nuclear weapons few nations are stupid enough to provoke something for no reason.
 
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Before I comment on the new aircraft idea, I would like to take the time to say something;
f*** john diefenbaker, not only did he destroy a plane, and the international respect of the air force, but a big chunk of nationalism.

And second, I believe that although the f15 is cheap, should we not have the best equiptment possible?  I, personally, would rather have 2 f-22 raptors, than 10 eagles.  Not only that, but we should be considering, as a country, to strengthen relations with Russia.  They have amazing scientists and technologies than massly over publicized f-22's.  Not saying f-22's are bad, on the contrary, they're one of my favourite.  And I believe, not only as a militaryman, but as a citizen and tax payer, I would be happy to dish out a few hundred bucks to gain the respect as a country back, that john diefenbaker killed.  And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying canadians aren't respected, but most of that respect has gone down the drain. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Respect is earned, not worn."
 

daniel h.

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
In the light of things said:
Before I comment on the new aircraft idea, I would like to take the time to say something;
f*** john diefenbaker, not only did he destroy a plane, and the international respect of the air force, but a big chunk of nationalism.

And second, I believe that although the f15 is cheap, should we not have the best equiptment possible?   I, personally, would rather have 2 f-22 raptors, than 10 eagles.   Not only that, but we should be considering, as a country, to strengthen relations with Russia.   They have amazing scientists and technologies than massly over publicized f-22's.   Not saying f-22's are bad, on the contrary, they're one of my favourite.   And I believe, not only as a militaryman, but as a citizen and tax payer, I would be happy to dish out a few hundred bucks to gain the respect as a country back, that john diefenbaker killed.   And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying canadians aren't respected, but most of that respect has gone down the drain.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Respect is earned, not worn."


1 - Diefenbaker must take responsibility though who knows who made the decision.....I don't think a reduction of naitonalism is an accident--it must be by design. Diefenbaker championed nationalism, yet he ended up signing a defence-sharing agreement where Canada would get to bid on contracts with U.S. defence manufacturers and be guaranteed branch plants but we promised not to build another aircraft for 99 years!!!! Who would sign such an agreement? Unless we simply were agreeing to help them become the next empire....we had a population of 12 million when the Arrow was cancelled, and Sweden builds the Saab Gripen with a population of only 7 million NOW....it must have been colonialism due to our foreign ownership, attitude, along with the cold war mentality, etc....also, nation states were seen as a thing of the past to globalist who created this integration we now see so much of.....

2 - Regarding Russia, I agree wholeheartedly, though isn't it the Mig-29 you think we should procure?

I don't believe Russia is willing to sell the Mig-35, and the U.S. won't sell the F-22 I believe.
 
Reaction score
0
Points
60
You're right. We would get the junky old ones.  But I think we should concentrate on strengthening world relations, and cut the crap on Canada/US relations.  What do they really do for us?  They got this nifty thing called NAFTA, aka the North American F*** Canada Agreement.  But that's besides the point.  Because of CAN/US relations, I would make a guess at that being the reason Russia would not want to work with us, in fear of us giving the US the technology.  And I don't blame them, politicians would jump at a chance to get some votes.

don't believe Russia is willing to sell the Mig-35, and the U.S. won't sell the F-22 I believe
And again the "friendship" gets us nowhere.

With regards to the Mig-35, I was thinking more about the su-27/37's :)  And please, to all of you that think all I want to do is badmouth the US, you're right!

Hand cramp.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
If your intent was to come here and badmouth the US, then you are in violation of the Forum Guidelines:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

Trolling is not wanted or accepted.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Maybe....still violates the Guidelines.

On to your other point of adopting Russian Aircraft. Bad Idea as I don't forsee them setting up a plant in Canada. Getting quality spare parts might be dicey and that supply line across the oceans just does not seem very smart to me.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,558
Points
1,010
Not to mention that getting cockpit/avionics converted to North American standard would be a nightmare... as would adding a 1553 databus aftermaket, because there is no way we could do it in the factory in Russia without violating more than a couple of sections of ITAR... as would converting the weapons stations and main CPU to drop/fire our weapons...then we would have to flight test the crap out of it...then we would have to figure out how to give it a certificate of airworthiness...

Or we could just stick to a nice western designed and built aircraft and save ourselves 10 years of headaches redesigning an airplane...
 

daniel h.

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Ex-Dragoon said:
Maybe....still violates the Guidelines.

On to your other point of adopting Russian Aircraft. Bad Idea as I don't forsee them setting up a plant in Canada. Getting quality spare parts might be dicey and that supply line across the oceans just does not seem very smart to me.


Just ask the U.S. to sell Alaska back to the Russians. ;D
 

daniel h.

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
SeaKingTacco said:
Not to mention that getting cockpit/avionics converted to North American standard would be a nightmare... as would adding a 1553 databus aftermaket, because there is no way we could do it in the factory in Russia without violating more than a couple of sections of ITAR... as would converting the weapons stations and main CPU to drop/fire our weapons...then we would have to flight test the crap out of it...then we would have to figure out how to give it a certificate of airworthiness...

Or we could just stick to a nice western designed and built aircraft and save ourselves 10 years of headaches redesigning an airplane...

1 - I believe the Mig-29 is available for export with western avionisc.

2 - Could you explain what ITAR is for the amature crowd like myself?
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,558
Points
1,010
ITAR- International Traffic In Arms Regulations.  Which I realized that I misused (thinking one thing, typing another).

More properly, I doubt we could get permission from US Congress to take export of US technology (like a 1553 databus, which they must approve) and then haul it to a factory in Russia for installation in a hypothetical Russian Jet by Russian techs.

We weren't talking Mig-29s either, Mig-35s were being discussed.

Anyway, it approaches Science Fiction or Fairy Tales on the scale of probabilty of happening.  IE- it won't.

Cheers.
 
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that we should concentrate more on world relations than pure US/British relations.  We have been working for so long to keep the US happy and haven't got much out of it (not saying they haven't done anything but I would definitely like to see more on their part) except for some old half-broken subs and seakings (hold on I got something to say about seakings after this).  I want canada to have a wide variety of partners, not one or two.  And I didn't mean getting the migs and such, I was referring to helping the russians/other countries (and vice versa) to develop future technologies. 

Ok and about the seakings, if any of you have flown in one hopefully you'll agree that the stabelization avionics on it are still advanced compared to many aircrafts, and I would hope that the SeaKings would be redesigned to accomodate faster speeds/better sub tracking/other, and/or put those avionics on newer or future aircrafts.
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Up until recently, Marine 1, Dubya's personal helicopter has been a Seathing.
Certainly one that has not ben beaten to death with umpteen deployments and one that has dedicated mechanics and an inexhaustible supply of parts and has been cared for & polished 24/7 but a sea thing nevertheless.... it's a good airframe. It's just that ours are from the original production line.
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
In the light of things said:
Ok and about the seakings, if any of you have flown in one hopefully you'll agree that the stabelization avionics on it are still advanced compared to many aircrafts, and I would hope that the SeaKings would be redesigned to accomodate faster speeds/better sub tracking/other, and/or put those avionics on newer or future aircrafts.

I have flown one, yesterday. I'm guessing you haven't flown in an S-92. I've had the opportunity and let me tell you, it's better. I know, I know, hard to believe, but the computer aided stabilization is much nicer than the mechanical stabilization you'll find in the Sea King. The ASE on the Sea King is not all it's cracked up to be, hardovers and channel failures do happen. It doesn't hold heading worth a damn, though it's supposed to hold it with in 5 degrees and when you do want to change heading, it requires 4-6 lbs of pressure on the pedal to release the heading hold.

While the ASE is a nice feature in the Sea King, any helo pilot worth is salt can fly it just as smooth without the ASE, I'm still working on that skill.

You can't even compare what you'll find on the S-92 to the Sea King, we're talking around 50 years in technology advancement here. The new sonar will be in the neighbourhood of a 10 times increase in sonar range, there's going to be link 11 or better and it's going to have an FMS inside the glass cockpit. Trust me, it's a huge step towards the future.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,558
Points
1,010
Ok and about the seakings, if any of you have flown in one hopefully you'll agree that the stabelization avionics on it are still advanced compared to many aircrafts, and I would hope that the SeaKings would be redesigned to accomodate faster speeds/better sub tracking/other, and/or put those avionics on newer or future aircrafts.

Sea King?  What is this "Sea King" to which you refer?  ::)

The stabilization equipment, or ASE, was the last word in advanced in 1967.  Not so much any more.

You may wish to have just a passing glance at my profile before lecturing me about Sea Kings.

Any chance you could fill in your profile somewhat?  You might help your credibility somewhat here on this board...

Ummm.. we were talking about CF-18s, right?
 
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Wasn't lecturing you, in fact I wasn't talking to you period. And, I don't need to be credible, I don't care if people believe me or not, it's my opinion.
 

SHF

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
OPINION "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty".  Seems to fit with your comments.  I now see the reason for the quick verbal warning.  The attitude certainly doesn't reflect well upon your "opinions".  Food for thought.  :cdn:

 
Top