Army Guy Posted August 19, 2008 Report Posted August 19, 2008 Although the F-22 is a primary Air superiority fighter, they have been using them as a multi role or ground support aircraft in Iraq with great sucess. The US is also thinking about letting Japan purchase 60 Aircraft, and has already thought about selling Israel 60, and Australia so they are or could be available for export. Canada has already dumped in the required start-up or buy in funding for the F-35, and it is a great aircraft , my piont is however one of the prime reasons we went for the aircraft was price, not because it was a better aircraft, but the old all mighty dollar...seems to be a recuring theme... Canada has intentions of purchasing 60 of these aircraft to replace the job that 138 CF-18 were assigned, current numbers report that there 121 left, with only 80 upgraded, the remaining aircraft are in long term storage....with 2 Sqns of 24 aircraft operational , the remaining 32 are in depot level maintance, or training and Testing aircraft at AETE.... My other piont is the F-22 is worth considering, if our order for our 60 F-35's was changed for 60 F-35 Jump jet capable aircraft, which would give our airboys the ability to operate much closer to the battlefield and not on airfields(they'll be thrilled im sure)translates to more ordance on target for the ground guys which is a good thing. And it will ensure that we are inter operable with our US counter parts... Ground support aircraft are good, but Canadian soldiers have good cause to not place to much trust in them, experiance has shown us that they travel way to fast, to indentify ground targets acurately...our answer would be an attack helo, something like the AH-64D, it's slow, and can act as an airbourne arty platform, that can take it's time and properly identify it's target (friend or foe) Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Argus Posted August 19, 2008 Author Report Posted August 19, 2008 I don't think we need an air superiority fighter. On the otherhand, an aircraft that can provide accurate and deadly close in support for our boots on the ground is needed. That's what helicopter gunships are for. Australia can afford them but apparently we're too poor. Hell, we don't even have any regular military helicopters, just chose cheap-ass griffons, which are civilian helicopters in all but name. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
White Doors Posted August 19, 2008 Report Posted August 19, 2008 some facts on both the F-22 and F-35. My only point is some of the increased cost for the F-22 are not reflected in the performance. A Hydrogen fuel cell car today costs over $200,000 and in 5 years will likely work better and cost much, much less. We have to be careful when procuring something on cost alone. More expensive doesn't always mean better either. ( I do appreciate your point of Canadians cheaping out on the military however) F-22 Raptor Role: air superiority fighter Builder: Lockheed Martin / Boeing Variants: YF-22A, F/A-22A Operators: USAF The F-22 Raptor is the world's first stealth air-to-air fighter. It is developed to replace the F-15C in the air superiority role. The F-22 is the first production aircraft with the ability to super cruise – flying at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners. The plane's builder Lockheed Martin Corp., has built several F-22s for test purposes. Most are at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., undergoing a series of tests. Last year the pentagon approved production plans for an initial batch of 13 production aircraft. Recently the designation for the Raptor was changed to F/A-22 to indicate the possible air-to-ground role of the aircraft. JDAM bombs can be carried in the internal weapon bay, while the optional external pylons offer a more flexible station for air-to-ground armament. Specifications: Powerplant: two Pratt & Whitney F119-P-100 turbofan each rated at 155.69 kN (35,000 lb st) with afterburning Dimensions: length 18.92m (62 ft 1 in); height 5.00m (16 ft 5 in); wing span 13.56m (44ft 6 in) Weights: empty more than 13.608 kg (30,000 lb); Max Take-Off Weight 26.308 kg (58,000 lb) Performance: max level speed at optimum altitude Mach 1.58 in supercruise and at 30,000 ft (9145m) Mach 1.7 in afterburning mode; service ceiling more than 15,240m (50,000 ft); g limit +7.9 Armament: one 20mm M61A2 Vulcan six-barrel gun with 480 rounds; 2 AIM-9X Sidewinder IR-guided missiles in internal side bays. Up to 6 AIM-120C or 4 AIM-120A AMRAAM missiles in internal fuselage weapon bays or 2 AIM-120C AMRAAMs and 2 GBU-32 JDAM bombs or 2 GBU-30 JDAM bombs. Up to four fuel tanks and up to 8 missiles can be carried on optional external hardpoints. (Reportedly there are plans for a F/A-22C with larger weapon bays capable or carrying a larger selection of Air-to-Ground weapons and weapons such as the AGM-88 HARM). ------------------------------------------- F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Role: multi-role strike fighter Builder: Lockheed Martin Variants: F-35A, F-35B, F-35C Operators: USAF, US Navy, US Marine Corps, Royal Navy/Royal Air Force (UK), (Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, Israel, Australia) The F-35 will be the result from the Joint Strike Fighter program. The aim of the program is to develop an affordable next generation stealth strike aircraft for the US Air Force, US Navy, US Marine Corps and the United Kingdom as well as other US allies. The program enables various forms of participation for the candidate export countries, ranging from 'informed partner' to 'major participant'. Boeing and Lockheed Martin were the two competitors in the Concept Development Phase (CDP). The Boeing Corp. designed and built the X-32 prototype and the Lockheed Martin team developed the X-35. The X-35 concept by Lockheed Martin was selected as the winner and the program has now entered the Systems Development Demonstration (SDD) phase of the JSF program. Lockheed Martin leads a development team including Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and Pratt & Whitney. Lockheed Martin brings in advanced technology experience, stealth technology and other technologies and experience which it has gained during F-22 research and development. Northrop Grumman offers tactical aircraft knowledge, stealth technology and carrier suitability. BAE System provides expertise and experience with short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) technology as well as advanced subcontract management. Pratt & Whitney is the builder of the engine which will power the JSF which is based on the F-119 turbojet from the F-22. To forfill the demands of the main contractors three different variants are developed. All versions will have a common structure and have the same fuselage and internal weapons bay. They will all three be powered by a F-119 modified engine. All variants will carry the standard designation F-35. The F-35A is the standard variant with conventional take off and landing developed for the US Air Force, the biggest JSF customer. The F-35A will replace the F-16 and the A-10 aircraft currently operated by the USAF. The F-35A will probably also be the most exported variant. Possible export countries for the F-35A include all current F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-4 Phantom, F/A-18 Hornet operators, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Greece, Israel, Australia, etcetera. The F-35B is the STOVL variant of the JSF. The F-119 is modified using the experience of BAE Systems based on the Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine from the AV-8 Harrier. Unlike the Air Force variant the F-35B carries no internal gun and the air refuelling probe is located on the right side of the forward fuselage instead of receptacle on the top surface of the aircraft. The main customers for the F-35B will be the USMC to replace the F/A-18 Hornet ands the AV-8B Harrier IIs and the United Kingdom to replace the Royal Air Force/Royal Navy combined Harrier force of Sea Harriers and GR.7s. Other future customers can include Spain and Italy which also operate the Harrier. The F-35C is a modified design which enables the JSF to operate from aircraft carriers using conventional carrier landings and capapult take off. The F-35C internal structure and landing gear have been strengthened to handle the loads associated with catapult launches and arrested carrier landings. It has a larger wing area than other JSF types with larger control surfaces for better low speed handling. Like the F-35B is has a refuelling probe instead of a receptacle. The US Navy will be the biggest customer of this variant. The F-35C will complement the US Navy fleet of F/A-18E/F fighters by replacing the F/A-18 A+ and C Hornet currently in service. Future variants might include two seat trainers of each variant and possible modifications for export customers. Specifications: Powerplant: one Pratt & Whitney F119-611 turbofan probably producing between 34,000 and 40,000 lbs of thrust with afterburning Dimensions: X-35A: length 50 ft 6 in (15.37m); height ; wing span 35 ft 0 in (10.65m) X-35C: larger wing span Weights: unknown Performance: max level speed unknown; service ceiling probably more than 15,240m (50,000 ft); g limit estimated at +9 Armament: one single-barrel Boeing Advanced 27mm cannon, primary AAM for defense is the AIM-120 AMRAAM of which at least two will be able to be carried in the internal weapon bay. The AIM-9X Sidewinder can only be carried on external additional hardpoints or on the wingtips, not in the internal weapons bay. A large variation of A-G weapons. Of which at least two JDAM GBU-31 (USAF, US Navy requirement) bombs or GBU-32 (USMC requirement) will be able to be carried in the internal weapons bay. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
Argus Posted August 19, 2008 Author Report Posted August 19, 2008 Here is two statements that contradict each other "we don't need enormous military investment" and up grading our military to allow for indenpendant action....We must show the US that we are atleast somewhat serious about our own defense, if we want a say on how that defense is to be run, put under US rule until the crises is over is exactly the direction we are in now, and will remain until we take our defense seriously The odd thing is that the same crowd which is so anti-American and so keen on distancing us from the US are the ones who are opposed to military spending. Which means we have to rely on the Americans. Long ago and far away it was Britain who guaranteed our borders, and they who fought the Americans when they invaded. And then it was Britain who decided the terms of a peace deal - with scant consideration for what Canadians wanted. We might find outselves with the US deciding what the terms of any deal or negotated settlement are with the Russians for our far north - even if no actual fighting takes place. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted August 19, 2008 Report Posted August 19, 2008 The odd thing is that the same crowd which is so anti-American and so keen on distancing us from the US are the ones who are opposed to military spending. Which means we have to rely on the Americans.Long ago and far away it was Britain who guaranteed our borders, and they who fought the Americans when they invaded. And then it was Britain who decided the terms of a peace deal - with scant consideration for what Canadians wanted. We might find outselves with the US deciding what the terms of any deal or negotated settlement are with the Russians for our far north - even if no actual fighting takes place. It really doesn't matter what we spend, we can't defend ourselves against a full on Russian attack. Quote
Wild Bill Posted August 19, 2008 Report Posted August 19, 2008 It really doesn't matter what we spend, we can't defend ourselves against a full on Russian attack. You don't always have to. It can be enough to make such an attack too expensive. It would also make us look like an effective partner to our allies, instead of the country that always sends the canteen ship. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Smallc Posted August 19, 2008 Report Posted August 19, 2008 You don't always have to. It can be enough to make such an attack too expensive. It would also make us look like an effective partner to our allies, instead of the country that always sends the canteen ship. I dunno, if you look at our work in Afghanistan, it seems that we're the ones who need our allies to be effective partners. Quote
Wild Bill Posted August 19, 2008 Report Posted August 19, 2008 I dunno, if you look at our work in Afghanistan, it seems that we're the ones who need our allies to be effective partners. Effective allies would be nice. Decent helicopters might be better. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Smallc Posted August 19, 2008 Report Posted August 19, 2008 Effective allies would be nice. Decent helicopters might be better. Decent helicopters are already on the way. What would really be nice, IMO, is new destroyers for the Navy. Quote
Alta4ever Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 While everything disscussed here in this thread would be nice for our military to have, we need more man power. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
William Ashley Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 Has anyone suggested that the US was interested in "taking Canada"? Americans joke about the invasion every now and then.. but after the fenians think they just settled for control of the media and industry. Quote I was here.
Riverwind Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 Has anyone suggested that the US was interested in "taking Canada"?I doubt it. The last thing the republicans would want is 20 more democratic senators..... Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
blueblood Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 some facts on both the F-22 and F-35.My only point is some of the increased cost for the F-22 are not reflected in the performance. A Hydrogen fuel cell car today costs over $200,000 and in 5 years will likely work better and cost much, much less. We have to be careful when procuring something on cost alone. More expensive doesn't always mean better either. ( I do appreciate your point of Canadians cheaping out on the military however) F-22 Raptor Role: air superiority fighter Builder: Lockheed Martin / Boeing Variants: YF-22A, F/A-22A Operators: USAF The F-22 Raptor is the world's first stealth air-to-air fighter. It is developed to replace the F-15C in the air superiority role. The F-22 is the first production aircraft with the ability to super cruise – flying at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners. The plane's builder Lockheed Martin Corp., has built several F-22s for test purposes. Most are at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., undergoing a series of tests. Last year the pentagon approved production plans for an initial batch of 13 production aircraft. Recently the designation for the Raptor was changed to F/A-22 to indicate the possible air-to-ground role of the aircraft. JDAM bombs can be carried in the internal weapon bay, while the optional external pylons offer a more flexible station for air-to-ground armament. Specifications: Powerplant: two Pratt & Whitney F119-P-100 turbofan each rated at 155.69 kN (35,000 lb st) with afterburning Dimensions: length 18.92m (62 ft 1 in); height 5.00m (16 ft 5 in); wing span 13.56m (44ft 6 in) Weights: empty more than 13.608 kg (30,000 lb); Max Take-Off Weight 26.308 kg (58,000 lb) Performance: max level speed at optimum altitude Mach 1.58 in supercruise and at 30,000 ft (9145m) Mach 1.7 in afterburning mode; service ceiling more than 15,240m (50,000 ft); g limit +7.9 Armament: one 20mm M61A2 Vulcan six-barrel gun with 480 rounds; 2 AIM-9X Sidewinder IR-guided missiles in internal side bays. Up to 6 AIM-120C or 4 AIM-120A AMRAAM missiles in internal fuselage weapon bays or 2 AIM-120C AMRAAMs and 2 GBU-32 JDAM bombs or 2 GBU-30 JDAM bombs. Up to four fuel tanks and up to 8 missiles can be carried on optional external hardpoints. (Reportedly there are plans for a F/A-22C with larger weapon bays capable or carrying a larger selection of Air-to-Ground weapons and weapons such as the AGM-88 HARM). ------------------------------------------- F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Role: multi-role strike fighter Builder: Lockheed Martin Variants: F-35A, F-35B, F-35C Operators: USAF, US Navy, US Marine Corps, Royal Navy/Royal Air Force (UK), (Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, Israel, Australia) The F-35 will be the result from the Joint Strike Fighter program. The aim of the program is to develop an affordable next generation stealth strike aircraft for the US Air Force, US Navy, US Marine Corps and the United Kingdom as well as other US allies. The program enables various forms of participation for the candidate export countries, ranging from 'informed partner' to 'major participant'. Boeing and Lockheed Martin were the two competitors in the Concept Development Phase (CDP). The Boeing Corp. designed and built the X-32 prototype and the Lockheed Martin team developed the X-35. The X-35 concept by Lockheed Martin was selected as the winner and the program has now entered the Systems Development Demonstration (SDD) phase of the JSF program. Lockheed Martin leads a development team including Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and Pratt & Whitney. Lockheed Martin brings in advanced technology experience, stealth technology and other technologies and experience which it has gained during F-22 research and development. Northrop Grumman offers tactical aircraft knowledge, stealth technology and carrier suitability. BAE System provides expertise and experience with short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) technology as well as advanced subcontract management. Pratt & Whitney is the builder of the engine which will power the JSF which is based on the F-119 turbojet from the F-22. To forfill the demands of the main contractors three different variants are developed. All versions will have a common structure and have the same fuselage and internal weapons bay. They will all three be powered by a F-119 modified engine. All variants will carry the standard designation F-35. The F-35A is the standard variant with conventional take off and landing developed for the US Air Force, the biggest JSF customer. The F-35A will replace the F-16 and the A-10 aircraft currently operated by the USAF. The F-35A will probably also be the most exported variant. Possible export countries for the F-35A include all current F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-4 Phantom, F/A-18 Hornet operators, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Greece, Israel, Australia, etcetera. The F-35B is the STOVL variant of the JSF. The F-119 is modified using the experience of BAE Systems based on the Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine from the AV-8 Harrier. Unlike the Air Force variant the F-35B carries no internal gun and the air refuelling probe is located on the right side of the forward fuselage instead of receptacle on the top surface of the aircraft. The main customers for the F-35B will be the USMC to replace the F/A-18 Hornet ands the AV-8B Harrier IIs and the United Kingdom to replace the Royal Air Force/Royal Navy combined Harrier force of Sea Harriers and GR.7s. Other future customers can include Spain and Italy which also operate the Harrier. The F-35C is a modified design which enables the JSF to operate from aircraft carriers using conventional carrier landings and capapult take off. The F-35C internal structure and landing gear have been strengthened to handle the loads associated with catapult launches and arrested carrier landings. It has a larger wing area than other JSF types with larger control surfaces for better low speed handling. Like the F-35B is has a refuelling probe instead of a receptacle. The US Navy will be the biggest customer of this variant. The F-35C will complement the US Navy fleet of F/A-18E/F fighters by replacing the F/A-18 A+ and C Hornet currently in service. Future variants might include two seat trainers of each variant and possible modifications for export customers. Specifications: Powerplant: one Pratt & Whitney F119-611 turbofan probably producing between 34,000 and 40,000 lbs of thrust with afterburning Dimensions: X-35A: length 50 ft 6 in (15.37m); height ; wing span 35 ft 0 in (10.65m) X-35C: larger wing span Weights: unknown Performance: max level speed unknown; service ceiling probably more than 15,240m (50,000 ft); g limit estimated at +9 Armament: one single-barrel Boeing Advanced 27mm cannon, primary AAM for defense is the AIM-120 AMRAAM of which at least two will be able to be carried in the internal weapon bay. The AIM-9X Sidewinder can only be carried on external additional hardpoints or on the wingtips, not in the internal weapons bay. A large variation of A-G weapons. Of which at least two JDAM GBU-31 (USAF, US Navy requirement) bombs or GBU-32 (USMC requirement) will be able to be carried in the internal weapons bay. My point is that since the F22 can take out a dozen F-15 single handedly and the F-15's are already eons superior to anythings the russkies produce, a person wouldn't have to have as many. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
Moonlight Graham Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 (edited) Before Harper was PM, the Canadian military was an atrophied piece of bunk in need of some TLC. I don't think our military needs to be greatly expanded. I just believe it needs to be sufficient & actually, ahem, functional. It has had more funding by the Conservatives, although i don't like how they've been using it (ie: Afghanistan). Canada needs the basic ability to defend its sovereignty and be able to properly defend its borders while also able to respond to most any domestic crisis. This doesn't mean we need to load up on fleets of F-22's. We just can't have our helicopters crashing into the ocean and we need to have the ability to transport our own troops with our own vehicles. When it comes to arctic sovereignty, we don't need a big aramada of battleships to defend against the Russians. I'm quite sure most of our western allies would want the arctic & its resources to be in the hands of Canada and not Russia, and would be willing to give us a bit of hand if Russia does become militarily aggressive. Yay for NATO! Edited August 20, 2008 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
blueblood Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 Before Harper was PM, the Canadian military was an atrophied piece of bunk in need of some TLC. I don't think our military needs to be greatly expanded. I just believe it needs to be sufficient & actually, ahem, functional. It has had more funding by the Conservatives, although i don't like how they've been using it (ie: Afghanistan).Canada needs the basic ability to defend its sovereignty and be able to properly defend its borders while also able to respond to most any domestic crisis. This doesn't mean we need to load up on fleets of F-22's. We just can't have our helicopters crashing into the ocean and we need to have the ability to transport our own troops with our own vehicles. When it comes to arctic sovereignty, we don't need a big aramada of battleships to defend against the Russians. I'm quite sure most of our western allies would want the arctic & its resources to be in the hands of Canada and not Russia, and would be willing to give us a bit of hand if Russia does become militarily aggressive. Yay for NATO! Unfortunately Denmark a NATO ally also doesn't recognize our sovereignty in the North, neither do the Americans. It's a free for all when the Ice goes, Canada needs to start carrying a big stick. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
Smallc Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 Before Harper was PM, the Canadian military was an atrophied piece of bunk in need of some TLC. Well, in all fairness, Paul Martin was the one that started the restoration. Quote
M.Dancer Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 Well, in all fairness, Paul Martin was the one that started the restoration. I don't recall.....I remember who ever was MoD under Chretien musing about mothballing the MBTs and using wheeled vehicles as their replacement...but Martin? I don't recall.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 I don't recall.....I remember who ever was MoD under Chretien musing about mothballing the MBTs and using wheeled vehicles as their replacement...but Martin? I don't recall.... Sea King replacement, Iltis replacement (may have been before him even), started to get the work done to replace the Herc, started work on JSS, was more, but I can't remember either. Harper accelerated the program. IMO, the two really important remaining projects are the destroyers and the SAR aircraft. Quote
Argus Posted August 20, 2008 Author Report Posted August 20, 2008 While everything disscussed here in this thread would be nice for our military to have, we need more man power. Absolutely. Canada has at least a third again as many people now as we did when the CAF was double, if not triple its present size, and we managed to afford it back then. And the army is the cheapest of the services to build up. You don't need multi-billion dollar equipment purchases for planes and ships. Just buy some APCs and more trucks and cars and fill out the three main regiments we have. None of them is anywhere close to fully manned. I'd even go so far as to suggest we ought to have a fourth or fifth. We should double the number of infantry troops we have. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
White Doors Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 My point is that since the F22 can take out a dozen F-15 single handedly and the F-15's are already eons superior to anythings the russkies produce, a person wouldn't have to have as many. Yes, but I am saying that the F-35 could perhaps do as an effective job. maybe not a dozen, but perhaps 6. F-18 are multi-role fighters, seems to make sense to replace them with multi-role fighters and that is the F-35. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
M.Dancer Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 F-18 are multi-role fighters, seems to make sense to replace them with multi-role fighters and that is the F-35. Otherwise we would still need to buy a bomber/tactical attack warplane as well as the F-22 Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
White Doors Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 Otherwise we would still need to buy a bomber/tactical attack warplane as well as the F-22 However, I would love to see the look on Layton's face when Harper announced that Canada is purchasing 10 of the latest American strategic bombers. haha Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
M.Dancer Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 However, I would love to see the look on Layton's face when Harper announced that Canada is purchasing 10 of the latest American strategic bombers. haha Lets not venture into that.....we most certainly DO NOT need strategic bombers....I do think though, something that could drop 1000k of cluster bombs would be an asset.... And the look on Layton's face would be the same. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
blueblood Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 Yes, but I am saying that the F-35 could perhaps do as an effective job. maybe not a dozen, but perhaps 6. F-18 are multi-role fighters, seems to make sense to replace them with multi-role fighters and that is the F-35. The F22 from your provided specifications sounds like a not too bad multirole fighter as well, plus a better scrapper in the air to boot. If Canada had carriers, I'd say an F-35, but we don't so the F-22 looks better. What the F-15 did to Mig 29's in Iraq was nuts, imagine an F-22. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
Smallc Posted August 20, 2008 Report Posted August 20, 2008 The F22 from your provided specifications sounds like a not too bad multirole fighter as well, plus a better scrapper in the air to boot. If Canada had carriers, I'd say an F-35, but we don't so the F-22 looks better.What the F-15 did to Mig 29's in Iraq was nuts, imagine an F-22. The non VTOL version of the F35 may be the first fighter jet to be equipped with laser weapons. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.