CTD said:The one question I would have to ask would be what todays threats are compared to what they would be in the near and distant future. Also what the actual attacks if any have been made in the recent few years, along with the sucess rates of such equipment being deployed on ships.
Can we be over protected in one area and not enough in another? Haveing a close to medium range capability with the CIWIS and the Deckgun along with a long stand off with the VLS what else do we need at present time.
CTD said:what else do we need at present time.
CDN Aviator said:Oh i guess i will be the one to torpedo this thread and say whats on everyone's mind.........
Carrier-based fighters and AEW aircraft.
There, thus dies this thread.......... Sharks with laser beams attached are a bit more realistic.
Snakedoc said:Well if we need carrier-based fighters, we need the carriers that go along with them too then
Many features that made the F/A-18 suitable for naval carrier operations were also retained by the Canadian Forces, such as the robust landing gear, the arrestor hook, and wing-folding mechanisms, which proved useful when operating the fighters from smaller airfields such as those found in the Arctic.
Ex-Dragoon said:Back on topic
Milnet.Ca Staff
Galahad said:Wouldn't high explosive rounds with proximity fuses be more effective?
CDN Aviator said:The idea is to chew up the missile and shred it out of the sky. You dont need HE for that.