It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New F22 Raptor

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SauberBMW
 


I'd have to question if the person on the other end even knew what he was talking about if you had the convo you claim. CFB Edmonton has been a Army base since '94 now and to my knowledge only has 408 Sqn on base. The CF-188 is based up in cold lake and F-16 for training doesn't seem to make sense at a army base that is out of country. now for the whole F-22/35 thing I don't know if they have a mock-up but why would the army even have one on their base?

I'm sure I could contact the base but I'll give you another chance to respond and do some homework to make sense out of what you think you saw. heck do a drawing yourself to help describe it.




posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
was it this
en.wikipedia.org...:Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
reply to post by SauberBMW
 


I'd have to question if the person on the other end even knew what he was talking about if you had the convo you claim. CFB Edmonton has been a Army base since '94 now and to my knowledge only has 408 Sqn on base. The CF-188 is based up in cold lake and F-16 for training doesn't seem to make sense at a army base that is out of country. now for the whole F-22/35 thing I don't know if they have a mock-up but why would the army even have one on their base?

I'm sure I could contact the base but I'll give you another chance to respond and do some homework to make sense out of what you think you saw. heck do a drawing yourself to help describe it.


your wrong about the base, the 408 is based in Namao (Edmonton) and they Fly Ch-146 Griffins. The base was built on January 1, 1971 and many aircraft that serviced through WW2, and Many tactical Aircraft make their home base their.

Edmonton is home to all of these...


1 Area Support Group Headquarters
1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group HQ
1 Combat Engineer Regiment
1 Field Ambulance
1Garrison Military Police Company
1 Service Battalion
15 Field Ambulance
15 (Edmonton) Service Battalion
15 Military Police Company
1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
20th Field Regiment, RCA, 61st & Headquarters Battery
3rd Battalion, Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry
408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron
6 Intelligence Company
742 Signal Squadron
8th Field Engineer Regiment
Canadian Forces Base / Area Support Unit Edmonton
Dispute Resolution Centre
Lord Strathconas Horse (Royal Canadians)
Royal Canadian Artillery Band
The Loyal Edmonton Regiment (4th Battalion PPCLI)
The South Alberta Light Horse (RCAC), B Squadron
LFWA Area Simulation Centre

so yeah id did my research. go ahead phone the base

[edit on 23-9-2008 by SauberBMW]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SauberBMW
As for the F-35, i dont know why he said he never leaves the ground. it could be for mechanical or studying purposes i dont know.
[edit on 22-9-2008 by SauberBMW]


There are only a couple of F-35s currently flying. The F-35A, and the F-35B that only recently started flying. Neither one of them is anywhere near ready to leave the country and spend a lot of time sitting on the ground at another airbase. They're still in early flight testing with them.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SauberBMW
 


Did you even read my post in which I state that the one operational sqn flying is a helo one? Yeah I know they fly the CH-146. As for all the other personal on base there really is nothing overly special about them as they are norm for a base its size and with its function in the army.

My point it is not a Air Force base and as such has no reason having CF-188s and F-16s on base for anything more then a day if needed for training. I don't understand what your point is by listing the personal or what not.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I think he probably saw an F-18 on a low-level training mission. To those who aren't used to spotting aircraft, a gray aircraft with two vertical stabilizers looks like any other gray aircraft with two vertical stabilizers.

Compare:
Ca F-18

F-22



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
ill post it again

your wrong about the base, the 408 is based in Namao (Edmonton) and they Fly Ch-146 Griffins. The base was built on January 1, 1971 and many aircraft that serviced through WW2, and Many tactical Aircraft make their home base their.

again

many aircraft that serviced through WW2, and Many tactical Aircraft make their home base their.

so what are you saying that i don't read your posts. i do and i did. i went to Canada's official military site and this is what it gave me. Go check for yourself



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:49 AM
link   
As Hattrick and myself previously posted... It might be that you saw an F-18. Take a look at our links again and see if it looks like anything that you saw....



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Amniodarone
 


i did, and i did again but the shapes don't match up. i compared it to an f-22 and it was almost a match.

what else do you guys want me to do



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Did you somehow manage to see the YF-23?





posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Masisoar
 


Neither YF-23 is flying, and if they were they wouldn't be in Canada.




posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SauberBMW

your wrong about the base, the 408 is based in Namao (Edmonton) and they Fly Ch-146 Griffins. The base was built on January 1, 1971 and many aircraft that serviced through WW2, and Many tactical Aircraft make their home base their.

so what are you saying that i don't read your posts. i do and i did. i went to Canada's official military site and this is what it gave me. Go check for yourself


You might want to re-read whatever official DND site that you went to as you definitely got some of your info wrong.

Namao was built back in the '40's by the U.S and not in 1971. 1 Jan 71 was when 408 Sqn was re-formed, having been disbanded in 1970, and started operations as a helicopter sqn out of Namao.

The only aircraft operating out of Namao are the Griffon helicopters of 408 Sqn. As far as I know, the runway is no longer operational and is certainly not the 14000 ft that it once was. The army has built buildings and other structures that impinge on the NW end of the runway, eliminating the original touchdown point at that end.

Certainly, you won't see CF-18 Hornets operating from there. If Hornets have to land in Edmonton, they land at the City Centre or International Airports. If Namao was operational, they would land there for security reasons if nothing else.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by erwalker

The only aircraft operating out of Namao are the Griffon helicopters of 408 Sqn. As far as I know, the runway is no longer operational and is certainly not the 14000 ft that it once was. The army has built buildings and other structures that impinge on the NW end of the runway, eliminating the original touchdown point at that end.


To further this here is the imagery and facts to back it up. It goes with out saying I'm feeling more then a little frustrated when you claim to read my posts and understand them but continue to claim that jet aircraft are capable of operating out of CFB Edmonton.



And to explain I'll leave it to the book.


And to put it into perspective here are the landing and take off rolls for the C/C hornet.
Min takeoff weight

Min takeoff distance with min takeoff weight - 2,300 ft

Min takeoff distance with max takeoff weight - 4,500 ft

Min landing distance at min landing weight - 3,300 ft

Min landing distance at max landing weight - 4,300 ft

And with that info its safe to say you would not want to be operating a plane off of that short of a runway. Most fighter operations are limited to airports that have 7000ft or more of runway.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
i know what i saw and i did my research, if you want to keep denying it fine but don't flame me



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SauberBMW
i know what i saw and i did my research, if you want to keep denying it fine but don't flame me


What you 'saw', and what facts others have uncovered don't add up. Thats the plain and simple of it.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


we are talking about the airfield anyways you don't believe, don't waste your time here

Okay we'll say the stupid aircraft is based in Cold lake alberta. does anybody think that canada is capable of making its own stealth aircraft



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
It would be extremely cost prohibitive to do so. They would have to start from scratch and develop everything as they went. They could just as easily buy the F-35 and get the same thing for a much lower cost.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well what do you mean from scratch? As a possibility I'd give it about 10 to 15 % chance i guess on the high side for each. There are a number of hurdles to over come but a version of stealth much like what was in development in germany in the 80's and a step or 2 above the F-117 I'd say sure why not. The issue is that stealth detection would make it hard to see these platforms as via-able for deployment.

The foundation of our core aerospace companies and involvement in many tech heavy developments in both space and military hardware could feed into a possible program but I don't see the funding being black enough to fund a project like this when we can't even get the replacements to be built for the SeaKing.

I want to believe we could do it but lets just say my faith is a little lacking in the area of actual execution of the program. Also Cold lake is much more feasible and while its "possible" that you saw "something" take-off the facts available stack against you.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Even if they wanted to, they would have to build the tooling for the RAM coating, along with everything else that comes with it. While it's possible to come up with something along the lines of the Nighthawk, the cost would still be prohibitively expensive.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SauberBMW
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Okay we'll say the stupid aircraft is based in Cold lake alberta. does anybody think that canada is capable of making its own stealth aircraft


There is no stealth aircraft operating out of Cold Lake. All we have are CF-188 Hornets (409 and 410 Sqns), CT-155 Hawks (419 Sqn), and CH-146 Griffons (417 Sqn). Oh, I think AETE might still have a CT-114 Tutor.

There have been no USAF aircraft here for weeks.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join