[Newsbot]

Title: Russian planes don't often fly into Canadian territory: Documents
Category: World
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2010-09-04 02:07:20
Canadian

[EyeBrock]

Steven Staples quoting.

Asking him to quote on defence matters is like asking Hamas to quote on Judaism. Lazy journalism again.

[kenmore]

Well he is right. harper et al are just trying the politics of fear...like the increase crime and the need for more jails etc. When governments have little to offer they appeal to the fundamentalist right wing agenda. I mean could harper be buying into McCarthyism? He certainly is sounding like a southern republican.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Steven Staples quoting.

Asking him to quote on defence matters is like asking Hamas to quote on Judaism. Lazy journalism again.

I think you're letting your bias against Staples colour your judgement.

David Pugilese is not a lazy journalist. His column on defence-related issues is very good, and he requested the data not Staples.

$1:

statistics requested by the Ottawa Citizen

I agree Staples is far from objective, but the writer here uses him only to show one viewpoint. He also quotes, Harper (via an aide), MacKay and a CF/NORAD officer.

$1:

"It is the best plane our government could provide our Forces, and when you are a pilot staring down Russian long-range bombers, that's an important fact to remember," said Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas

$1:

Asked for comment about the NORAD statistics, MacKay stated via email that, "Canada's sovereignty is of paramount importance to our Canadian Forces, and we make no apologies for working to maintain the integrity of our airspace."

$1:

"At no time did the Russian military aircraft enter Canadian or United States sovereign airspace," stated NORAD spokesman Canadian Navy Lt. Desmond James. "Both Russia and NORAD routinely exercise their capability to operate in the North. These exercises are important to both NORAD and Russia and are not cause for alarm."

I'd say it's one of the most objective pieces I've seen on the issue to date.

[EyeBrock]

I don't have a 'bias' towards Steven Staples. I just object to him pretending to be a defence analyst when his organisation is an anti-military one.

Check out the Rideau Institute's web site. It's quite self-explanatory. He has no military or defence experience, his degree is in history. He's a left-wing anti-military activist.

The F35's top speed remains classified but is reported to be between Mach 1.5 to 1.8, a speed it can maintain throughout it's mission with it’s very economical turbofan engine. The F18's top speed with last generation turbojet engines ( that burn gas very quickly with afterburner) is Mach 1.8, a speed it can't keep up long as it would severely impact it's range.

The F35's combat range is reported to be 1200 nm or 2222 km. That's with internal fuel only.

The F18's combat range 'clean' (as in without external tanks) is slightly less at 1090 nm or 2000 km. The Super Hornet's (F18E) combat range is slightly lower again.

That would make Staples quote that the F35 is slower and has less range wrong. This was part of Puglise's article so I'm calling it as it is. Lazy journalism.


The rest of the article isn't bad but his facts are wrong.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I don't have a 'bias' towards Steven Staples. I just object to him pretending to be a defence analyst when his organisation is an anti-military one.

Check out the Rideau Institute's web site. It's quite self-explanatory. He has no military or defence experience, his degree is in history. He's a left-wing anti-military activist.

That's called objective journalism.

You look at both sides of a debate, the pro-fighter and anti-fighter sides. Otherwise, you wind up looking bias and slanted like other articles on the topic have been.

Like I said, this article is pretty objective.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The F35's top speed remains classified but is reported to be between Mach 1.5 to 1.8, a speed it can maintain throughout it's mission with it’s very economical turbofan engine. The F18's top speed with last generation turbojet engines ( that burn gas very quickly with afterburner) is Mach 1.8, a speed it can't keep up long as it would severely impact it's range.

The F35's combat range is reported to be 1200 nm or 2222 km. That's with internal fuel only.

The F18's combat range 'clean' (as in without external tanks) is slightly less at 1090 nm or 2000 km. The Super Hornet's (F18E) combat range is slightly lower again.

That would make Staples quote that the F35 is slower and has less range wrong. This was part of Puglise's article so I'm calling it as it is. Lazy journalism.

The rest of the article isn't bad but his facts are wrong.

Yeah, but Staples getting facts wrong undermines his position, not that of the journalist looking into the issue.

[andyt]

I just read a headline that said Russia, US and Canada are conducting joint military exercises in the Arctic. If the Rooshians are so scary, and always testing our defenses, should be be playing war games with them at the same time?

[DerbyX]

I'm not so sure the facts are wrong anyway. A top speed of mach 1.67 for the F35 which suggests afterburner vs a mach 1.8+ for the super Hornet.

The F35 can carry more internal fuel but the F18E can carry a larger fuel load in total giving it a much greater range depending on mission constraints.

The combat radius for the F35 as listed (presumably with 2 sidewinders) is 590 nmi but the F18Es combat radius says 390 nmi for an interdiction mission which one site listed as fully loaded with missiles and bombs.

Clean + 2 AAMs for the F35 is 1200 nmi vs the 1275 nmi of the F18E.

The F18E does appear to be slightly faster and have longer legs.

[EyeBrock]

andyt andyt:

I just read a headline that said Russia, US and Canada are conducting joint military exercises in the Arctic. If the Rooshians are so scary, and always testing our defenses, should be be playing war games with them at the same time?

No, it's a sound policy to exercise with those that are a potential threat, and the Russians remain a potential threat. Maybe working together will diminish that potential.

However, we should always be ready to defend ourselves from threats, known and unknown.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

I just read a headline that said Russia, US and Canada are conducting joint military exercises in the Arctic. If the Rooshians are so scary, and always testing our defenses, should be be playing war games with them at the same time?

Yes. Because when both sides are aware of what is SOP for the other side that lessens the chance of an armed confrontation.

And let me weigh in here: While the Russians may not have infringed on Canadian or US airpsace, the Soviets definitely did and there were more than a few shoot downs and and more than a few Soviet aircraft forced to land after flying too far into controlled airspace. Given that the same people are running the Russian military now as who ran the Soviet military and I'd say it's improbable that the Russians have not infringed on US or Canadian airspace since 1992.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

I just read a headline that said Russia, US and Canada are conducting joint military exercises in the Arctic. If the Rooshians are so scary, and always testing our defenses, should be be playing war games with them at the same time?

Yes. Because when both sides are aware of what is SOP for the other side that lessens the chance of an armed confrontation.

And let me weigh in here: While the Russians may not have infringed on Canadian or US airpsace, the Soviets definitely did and there were more than a few shoot downs and and more than a few Soviet aircraft forced to land after flying too far into controlled airspace. Given that the same people are running the Russian military now as who ran the Soviet military and I'd say it's improbable that the Russians have not infringed on US or Canadian airspace since 1992.

Hmmm, I seem to recall a few incidents of US invading USSR airspace as well - Gary Powers ring a bell? And "given that the same people are running the US military now as who ran the US military then and I'd say it's improbable that the US has not infringed on Russian airspace since 1992."

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Hmmm, I seem to recall a few incidents of US invading USSR airspace as well - Gary Powers ring a bell? And "given that the same people are running the US military now as who ran the US military then and I'd say it's improbable that the US has not infringed on Russian airspace since 1992."

The planes we drive over the USSR...er, Russia, anymore are so high they are legally in space and are not targets. That and if we really want good intel on the Russians it's cheaper to just buy it off the net than send in an expensive aircraft or retask a satellite.

[saturn_656]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I'm not so sure the facts are wrong anyway. A top speed of mach 1.67 for the F35 which suggests afterburner vs a mach 1.8+ for the super Hornet.

Start hanging stores off the F-18's hardpoints and see how quickly that advantage becomes negated.

$1:

The F35 can carry more internal fuel but the F18E can carry a larger fuel load in total giving it a much greater range depending on mission constraints.

See above. Start hanging ET's off the wings and see the Super Bugs speed advantage disappear. External tanks also cut into the payload capacity. More fuel means less weapons.

$1:

The combat radius for the F35 as listed (presumably with 2 sidewinders) is 590 nmi but the F18Es combat radius says 390 nmi for an interdiction mission which one site listed as fully loaded with missiles and bombs.

390 nm figure is not fully loaded with missiles and bombs. It is 4 x 1000 lb bombs, along with two external tanks and two Sidewinders.

$1:

Clean + 2 AAMs for the F35 is 1200 nmi vs the 1275 nmi of the F18E.

The F18E does appear to be slightly faster and have longer legs.

The F-35 is considered clean carrying 4 air to air missiles internally, not simply two sidewinders like the Super Bug. Perk of the internal weapons bays.

[EyeBrock]

Nicely said Saturn. The reality of aircraft and payload vs fuel and drag vs fuel-burn seems beyond the hacks who report this stuff in our media.


All the so-called journalists in Canada have zero clue about any of this stuff but they can write columns on the F35.

Seems like knowing fuck-all is a prerequisite for work in the media.

[saturn_656]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Nicely said Saturn. The reality of aircraft and payload vs fuel and drag vs fuel-burn seems beyond the hacks who report this stuff in our media.

Something else that should be considered is the rate of fuel burn on the single engine F-35 versus the dual engined Hornet. Even if the two aircraft carried a similar level of fuel (which they don't), the F135 or F136 engine may provide superior fuel consumption figures compared to two F414 engines.

But such information is hard to come by for Joe Public.

$1:

All the so-called journalists in Canada have zero clue about any of this stuff but they can write columns on the F35.

Seems like knowing fuck-all is a prerequisite for work in the media.

I seem to recall some media outlet referring to a destroyer as a "battleship" once.

Or a few years ago when there were musings about us acquiring amphibious assault ships and certain people were jumping on the Conservatives for wanting to buy "aircraft carriers".