Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Ride the Tiger with CD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: basserdan who wrote (120973)	6/30/2008 12:36:28 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Respond to of 313046

I seen that 60 Minutes segment, good report.

To: basserdan who wrote (120973)	6/30/2008 1:11:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 313046

History - Israeli airstrike on Iraqi nuclear reactor (1981) youtube.com Good for watching after the market closes. 44 minutes long, very interesting.

To: basserdan who wrote (120973)	6/30/2008 3:46:36 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 313046

Canada has an air force. They do really. There are 426 aircraft in their airforce. Most of them date from the Korean war, and perhaps half of them are in top condition, i.e. more or less serviceable as long as you don't have to fly them too far. They have some used helicopters and transport planes on order. In actual fact 30 percent of their jet fighters and helicopters are out of service because the air force can no longer afford parts and maintenance for them. Here are the actual vintages of the aircraft they own. Westland Heli (Cormorant) - 1987 Harvard Prop - 1961 Bell 206 Helo - 1962 Airbus Jet 1982 Bell 412 Helo - 1970 CF-18 Jet - 1974 Globemaster Prop - 1981 Challenger Jet- 1976 Tutor Jet - 1961 Buffalo Prop - 1967 Otter Turbo 1970 Dash -8 Turbo 1980 C-130 Hercules Turbo - 1960 Orion turbo - 1961 Sperwer unmanned prop - 2000 Sea King Heli - 1961 Sikorsky S-92 Heli - 1998 Super Herc Turbo - 2004+ If you have a production line with spare parts and an obsolete design, or some returns from other air forces, Canada is your customer. Canada used to build aircraft that were 30 years ahead of its time. Now it buys stuff that is 30 years out of date and "upgrade them" in old aircraft hangers with WWII designs. When its crippled fleet of 32 operational CF-18's (out of an original 138 purchased) with their 1970 technology arrived in operation Desert Storm, their avionics could not longer communicate with other Nato aircraft due to the ~30 year freeze on military expenditures by the anti-war liberals. In order to avoid embarrassing the country and to keep secrets of lack of Nato military preparedness from the enemy due to the opt-out by Canada, the CAF was relegated to flying very high 60,000 foot missions after the US wild weasels had cleared the target area of AA defense - for cosmetic purposes only- no military value. In fact no Canadian air craft fired a shot at the enemy or got within operational range because in fact they could not engage them with their primitive equipment. They had no avoidance or return fire capabilities against even 1975 era soviet control radar-missile defense. Lacking IFF for preventing friendly fire from other aircraft in their wing, they could not fly in close formation with allied wings. This lack of friend of foe ID caused an incident in Afghanistan later where CDN ground troops with basically 1960 to 1970 style equipment and no code communication with AWACS air control or other Allied/US Nato forces, were fired upon by US aircraft patrols. The real scandal? Not that US pilots did not get clearance to fire properly, but that CDN troops did not have what is now world wide standard and even was on WWII aircraft -- co-ordinated electronic Interrogation Friend of Foe systems IFF - upgraded to today. (Yes, Johnny, they had electonic radar and identification systems on Focke Wulfs and B17's. in WWII) You can't bloody well tell from 5000 foot altitude at night what the epaulets on a soldiers uniform are from a aircraft are at 400 kph. And the idea that the birds would radio in when seeing ground fire, and ask exactly where the allied troops might be.. what nonsense. Even if they did have this magic map.. is it up to date 1 hour later and what about enemy troops in the same area..? when you put it to reality the whole affair doesn't stand any reasonable test. So they have all this orchestrated outrage blaming the pilots, fatigue, bad attitude etc.. it doesn't get past enemy intelligence for very long. they operate the same systems and equipment and no doubt have thought about it a bit. All joint Nato craft are supposed to have this system. Canada does not. Reason: 30 years of Liberal party military cut backs. While they paid Quebec ad agencies 150 million dollars for phony political reasons, they froze fuel for training flights, money for spare parts, and basic upgrades. What Canada has spent on ad agencies for the government since 1938 would have outfitted an entire modern army with small arms, food and fuel and ammunition for a few wars. (estimate $7-10 billion) We have heard whispers in the press about European and US complaints about NATO lack of compliance by Canada, now you know what it's about. When we trashed the Av Roe Avro-Arrow, (CF-105) in 1959 we lost the capability of supplying aircraft to Canada that would stay current with NATO needs into the end of the 20th century. Bombardier was given favouritism killing the Winnipeg and Toronto aeropace industries and we ended up with no military production capability. We killed the Avro Arrow for secret reasons, that may have had something to do with the F117 and SR-71 stealth aircraft then under development soon after. The F-117 was listed as a first flight in 1981 but in fact if flew in 1965. The SR-71 was in design concept stage in 1961 and completed about the same time as the F-117. Perhaps it was thought that in attempt at penetration of hostile airspace the Avro Arrow had insufficient range (400 statute miles) and was vulnerable to radar guided SAM's, even at its mach 2.5 operational speed. The SR-71 could fly 3800 miles at Mach 4.1 at 80,000 feet. People might dispute this but the speed of sound is only 541 nautical miles per hour at that altitude due to low temperatures. The SR-71 could achieve 2200+ knots/h. Mach is a relative speed to the speed of sound at the particular altitude. (It is in the formula for subsonic flight as "sea level" temp-speed, but it is impact over static that counts in the calc.) The U2 used to fly at about 540 KMPH (and lower.. I had heard as low as 450 kph at 60,000 feet to stay below trans-sonic speed, so it was 95% critical. Below that speed it would stall, due to stall speed increasing at altitude, and above this it would create a sonic boom. I am fairly sure that the speed of the U2 was 450 Knots, and its IAS must have been 230 at that altitude. If it were 450 IAS it would have broken the speed of sound. EC<:-}