Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Here is a question for you folks. Now that the US has killed their "Arrow", should Canada buy the airframes and fix them? Quote
Army Guy Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Us government has not approved the F-22 or any of it's tech for sale to any country, and although Gates has squashed the program, and the plant is being converted to produce f-35's there is still a chance that production will continue in the future, perhaps with an adminstration change or what ever.....That being said Canada is having problems with funding the F-35 program....a much cheaper fighter....can you imigine the problems a f-22 program would have... F-22 is a very nice fighter, the worlds best todate, but it is well beyond our price range.... 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.
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Now that the US has killed their "Arrow", should Canada buy the airframes and fix them? We should recruit the engineers so we can put a man on the moon. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 We should recruit the engineers so we can put a man on the moon. That was funny! Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 Us government has not approved the F-22 or any of it's tech for sale to any country, and although Gates has squashed the program, and the plant is being converted to produce f-35's there is still a chance that production will continue in the future, perhaps with an adminstration change or what ever.....That being said Canada is having problems with funding the F-35 program....a much cheaper fighter....can you imigine the problems a f-22 program would have...F-22 is a very nice fighter, the worlds best todate, but it is well beyond our price range.... I know the paper pushers have issues with the F35, but what can I say the F22 is a nice bird with issues. Come on AG lets buy the damned things and fix'em up. I'll bet we could solve the issues. Quote
segnosaur Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 I know the paper pushers have issues with the F35, but what can I say the F22 is a nice bird with issues. Come on AG lets buy the damned things and fix'em up. I'll bet we could solve the issues. There's nothing really to buy... the U.S. is not going to get rid of the F-22s that they currently have (well over 100). They are just not going to produce any more of them. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 I know the paper pushers have issues with the F35, but what can I say the F22 is a nice bird with issues. Come on AG lets buy the damned things and fix'em up. I'll bet we could solve the issues. Not sure what you mean vis-a-vis "Arrow", as the F-22 is deployed and operational as of 2006 with about 150 units produced. As AG stated, Canada can't buy them even if it wanted to. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 There's nothing really to buy... the U.S. is not going to get rid of the F-22s that they currently have (well over 100). They are just not going to produce any more of them. I would not bet on that. They spent 177 million each on the damned things. They can't deploy them, because they don't work and to keep them means spending money on an asset they can't use. I am willing to be that within the next two years the entire production is sold off to recover some of the costs. I think we should be preparing for that eventuality. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) I would not bet on that. They spent 177 million each on the damned things. They can't deploy them, because they don't work and to keep them means spending money on an asset they can't use. I am willing to be that within the next two years the entire production is sold off to recover some of the costs. Not deployed ???? Sold off ??? To who ????? I think we should be preparing for that eventuality. And I think Canada needs to solve the rotary winged aircraft problem before trying to buy the world's most capable air superiority fighter at a garage sale. Edited July 30, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 And I think Canada needs to solve the rotary winged aircaft problem before trying to buy the world's most capable air superiority fighter at a garage sale. I heard the B2s are like cats. They really hate a bit o moisture. Quote
madmax Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 We should recruit the engineers so we can put a man on the moon. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 Not deployed ???? Sold off ??? To who ????? The bird has never been deployed in combat, because when it rains they don't work very well. I think they will be sold off, to the highest bidder. And I think Canada needs to solve the rotary winged aircraft problem before trying to buy the world's most capable air superiority fighter at a garage sale. You can think what you like BC. We have lots of problems to solve, I just think that we may be able to act on an opportunity up here. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 The bird has never been deployed in combat, because when it rains they don't work very well. I think they will be sold off, to the highest bidder. Neither have Minuteman III or Trident missiles, but that doesn't mean they are scared of the rain. You can think what you like BC. We have lots of problems to solve, I just think that we may be able to act on an opportunity up here. Canada is a Tier 3 partner for the F-35.....has no mission for an F-22 anyway. When was the last Canadian air combat (CAP) kill? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 Canada has no need of either of the ICBM's dude. We don't have and don't want nukes. Air superiority fighters we could use though. As to when the last air combat mission in which an enemy aircraft was destroyed, I have no idea. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Canada has no need of either of the ICBM's dude. We don't have and don't want nukes. Air superiority fighters we could use though. As to when the last air combat mission in which an enemy aircraft was destroyed, I have no idea. OK....dude.....I will make a note not to start the nuclear war on a rainy day. The point is not to assume that weapons systems don't work just because they have not been "in combat". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonbox Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 The F-22 doesn't have a real role to fill. Maybe if the idea was, "Hey guys let's try and find the absolute most expensive way to accomplish a military objective" then maybe the Raptor could stay in production. As it is, any current and future anticipated threats are VASTLY VASTLY VASTLY outclassed by the Raptor. It's like ordering a taxi to go across the street, or buying a thousand dollar alarm clock, or building school desks out of mahogany and walnut, or building a submarine to go 10000 feet underwater to bring back sand to make glass out of. Are you getting the picture? Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 The F-22 doesn't have a real role to fill. Maybe if the idea was, "Hey guys let's try and find the absolute most expensive way to accomplish a military objective" then maybe the Raptor could stay in production. As it is, any current and future anticipated threats are VASTLY VASTLY VASTLY outclassed by the Raptor. It's like ordering a taxi to go across the street, or buying a thousand dollar alarm clock, or building school desks out of mahogany and walnut, or building a submarine to go 10000 feet underwater to bring back sand to make glass out of. Are you getting the picture? I have to admit the project was a failure. I mean more than 50K per hour to fly the damned things is a tad expensive. The skin problems account for 50% of the maintenance, which is about 30 hours service fro every hour flown. Quote
Moonbox Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Which is stupid. They have planes that cost a fraction of what the F-22 does both to build, maintain and fly, and that also fulfill ALL the roles the F-22 is intended to fulfill. Unless the US goes to war against Russia or Europe, there's really no risk of the F-15's, F-16's or F-18's not vastly outclassing anything they go up against. By the time these planes have much to worry about, the F-35 will be rolling off the production line, also at a fraction of the cost of the F-22. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 I have to admit the project was a failure. I mean more than 50K per hour to fly the damned things is a tad expensive. The skin problems account for 50% of the maintenance, which is about 30 hours service fro every hour flown. You can admit what you please...it won't bring the "Arrow" back. F-22 will solve corrosion and many other problems, just like aircraft that have gone before. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonbox Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 If anything, the F-22 was at least a groundbreaking project as far as technology was concerned. Operationally, no really feasible, but REALLY cool things were done with that plane. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Which is stupid. They have planes that cost a fraction of what the F-22 does both to build, maintain and fly, and that also fulfill ALL the roles the F-22 is intended to fulfill. Unless the US goes to war against Russia or Europe, there's really no risk of the F-15's, F-16's or F-18's not vastly outclassing anything they go up against. By the time these planes have much to worry about, the F-35 will be rolling off the production line, also at a fraction of the cost of the F-22. F-22 is a 5th gen air superiority fighter....I'm sure the same was uttered when F-14, F-15, and F/A 18 were designed / produced. How many of Canada's 123 CF-18's are air worthy and operational today....at this moment? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Canada has no need of either of the ICBM's dude. We don't have and don't want nukes. Air superiority fighters we could use though. As to when the last air combat mission in which an enemy aircraft was destroyed, I have no idea. The last Canadian to score a kill in air to air combat was during WW2. Bill Atkinson was his name and served with the RN in the Pacific during the final months of the war. Edited July 30, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Moonbox Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) F-22 is a 5th gen air superiority fighter....I'm sure the same was uttered when F-14, F-15, and F/A 18 were designed / produced. How many of Canada's 123 CF-18's are air worthy and operational today....at this moment? Probably around 60-80, but that really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the F-22 is worth keeping around. The F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 etc were all designed with the threat of Soviet Russia in mind. When they were being designed and built the Ruskies were building similar and sometimes better aircraft. With the Cold War over and a direct confrontation between Russia and the USA unthinkable, the dynamics of military spending amongst the two have changed. The USA is now hunting guerrilas, militias and terrorists around the world. A stealth fighter that costs $140 million to build and then $50,000/hour to fly isn't an effective use of resources when there's nothing out there that could even come close to testing its capabilities in combat. Wait for the F-35. They'll be able to build and maintain it for a fraction of the cost of the F-22 and it will be better than anything out there BUT the F-22. It's highly unlikely that the Pak Fa or anything is going to make it into major production before that and even if it did the Russians aren't exactly going to be giving them away to N. Korea or Iran. Edited July 30, 2009 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) The F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 etc were all designed with the threat of Soviet Russia in mind. When they were being designed and built the Ruskies were building similar and sometimes better aircraft. With the Cold War over and a direct confrontation between Russia and the USA unthinkable, the dynamics of military spending amongst the two have changed. Name one Soviet aircraft that was better than its US/NATO counterpart. Hint: there's only one. Edited July 30, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) The F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 etc were all designed with the threat of Soviet Russia in mind. When they were being designed and built the Ruskies were building similar and sometimes better aircraft. With the Cold War over and a direct confrontation between Russia and the USA unthinkable, the dynamics of military spending amongst the two have changed. Nope....the USA pursued a high-low mix even during the Cold War (that's why the F-16 even exists). The US stated objective of "full spectrum dominance" against any present or future adversary kept the now twenty-something F-22 project alive. Jobs in key congressional districts also helped. The USA is now hunting guerrilas, militias and terrorists around the world. A stealth fighter that costs $140 million to build and then $50,000/hour to fly isn't an effective use of resources when there's nothing out there that could even come close to testing its capabilities in combat. Maybe, but it would be foolish to wait and find out. The US cannot follow Canada's example when it comes to military procurements. Wait for the F-35. They'll be able to build and maintain it for a fraction of the cost of the F-22 and it will be better than anything out there BUT the F-22. It's highly unlikely that the Pak Fa or anything is going to make it into major production before that and even if it did the Russians aren't exactly going to be giving them away to N. Korea or Iran. Wait for the F-35...it will also have teething problems just like the F-22. Edited July 30, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
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.