Canadian jets repel Russian bombers

[Oh No a Canadian]

[John Wayne voice ]Well, I'll tell ya, Ivan.  You just try it and find out!!![/John Wayne voice]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[MarkOttawa]

Post at Unambiguously Ambidextrous:

So Labrador is now Arctic? That’s why we need F-35s?
http://unambig.com/so-labrador-is-now-arctic-thats-why-we-need-f-35s/

...more silly and stupid government spin...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[vonGarvin]

Ironically, the CF-101 Voodoo was entirely ineffective as a conventional interceptor.  Its armament consisted of 2 missiles (GAR 2A Falcon) and 2 rockets (GENIE).  The GAR 2A was a heat-seeker, had technology that was from the 1950's and they stopped making those missiles in the early 1960's.  The GENIE was effective, but as a reminder, it was a nuclear weapon.  You can fill in the blanks on that one.


Nice plane, though.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Different nukes for different fukes, er, times ;D.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[vonGarvin]

Different nukes for different fukes, er, times ;D.

Mark
Ottawa

:rofl:

To be honest, I went to youtube and watched a bunch of footage on Voodoos flying about.  I forgot how awesome that jet looked flying around.

 

[medicineman]

Maybe the tune will change when Blackjacks start doing the overflights instead of the Bears...

MM

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Ironically, the CF-101 Voodoo was entirely ineffective as a conventional interceptor.  Its armament consisted of 2 missiles (GAR 2A Falcon) and 2 rockets (GENIE).  The GAR 2A was a heat-seeker, had technology that was from the 1950's and they stopped making those missiles in the early 1960's.  The GENIE was effective, but as a reminder, it was a nuclear weapon.  You can fill in the blanks on that one.


Nice plane, though.

Actually, we loaded up 2xAIM-4D (Falcon) infa-red guided missiles and 2x AIR-2A (Genie) rockets, which were unguided.

We had some AIM-24B missiles later, that were a little faster and harder hitting (bigger warhead) and better infa-red, but other than that looked about the same.

They would be vectored using IR and radar.

The AIM-4D could move at about Mach 4 and the AIR-2A at approx Mach 3, both had a range of about 6 miles.

The whole attack path was rather convoluted and the missiles took time to wake up once armed.

I can try find something on it if you want.

The weapons door was a rotating affair that held two AIM on one side and two AIR on the other.

Or when we were flying to Tyndall, in Florida, or some such, we would attach the aluminum cargo box for away gear (golf clubs) ;D

The Q birds were always loaded, but we never confirmed or denied, the type of armament. They used to launch for intrusions (on the west coast) a couple of times a week, at least, in the late 70's.

 

[vonGarvin]

RAF Tornado F3 intercepting a Blackjack.  Thankfully, the Russians have fewer than 20.

 

[vonGarvin]

The Q birds were always loaded, but we never confirmed or denied, the type of armament. They used to launch for intrusions (on the west coast) a couple of times a week, at least, in the late 70's.

The one website (not Wiki-anything) mentioned that the GAR2A evolved into the AIM 4D.  I just mean that unless nuke authority were given, it could fire only two missiles. 

Now, the weapons station was internal, no?

 

[aesop081]

Thankfully, the Russians have fewer than 20.

Not for much longer as the production line is re-opening.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The one website (not Wiki-anything) mentioned that the GAR2A evolved into the AIM 4D.  I just mean that unless nuke authority were given, it could fire only two missiles. 

Now, the weapons station was internal, no?

The VooDoo had a rotating weapons door just aft of the nose gear. Two missles were on one side and two rockets on the other, when fully loaded. So the missles were hanging outside at launch and the rockets internal. Both missles fired in a single launch about two seconds apart. Then you would rotate the door for another go around with the rockets hanging................if needed.

 

[belka]

Not for much longer as the production line is re-opening.

So they are building new 1980's era bombers?

 

[aesop081]

So they are building new 1980's era bombers?

I cant remember where i read that unfortunately. What i do know is that, in 2006, Russia took delivery of a new-built TU-160 and began modernizing the rest at a rate of 5 per year.

 

[vonGarvin]

So they are building new 1980's era bombers?

No.  They are building 21st century bombers.  The airframe is from a design that originated in the 1970s, but recent models include the following:
completely digital, multireserved, neutron and other nuclear emissions resistant avionics;
full support of cruising and steering through GLONASS global satellite positioning system;
updated version of NK-32 engines with increased reliability;
ability to operate new nuclear/non-nuclear GLONASS-navigated cruise missiles (Kh-55);
ability to handle missiles that launch military or civil satellites;
ability to bear laser-guided bombs; and
advanced radar emissions absorbing covering.
OK, so GPS isn't exactly "new", but it can handle missles that LAUNCH SATELLITES. 


This plane has reach.  As an example:

On 10 September 2008 two Russian Tu-160 landed in Venezuela as part of military maneuvers, announcing an unprecedented deployment to Russia's ally at a time of increasingly tense relations between Russia and the United States

And if one came by tomorrow, it would be intercepted by a 1980's plane: the CF-18.

 

[belka]

And if one came by tomorrow, it would be intercepted by a 1980's plane: the CF-18.

Meh, a missile is a missile if things get frisky in an interception. Doesn't matter if it gets released from a CF-18 or F-22, the result will be the same.

 

[MarkOttawa]

belka:

Meh, a missile is a missile if things get frisky in an interception. Doesn't matter if it gets released from a CF-18 or F-22, the result will be the same.

Or a 1980s Tornado,
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tornado/
or a Voodoo .  As long as the interceptor has the speed, and range, to get to the potential intruder in a, er, timely fashion.

Mark
Ottawa