$9 Billion No-Bid Contract for 65 F-35s

[Moonbox]

that you repeatedly don't comprehend it shows what? slow on the uptake are you?... the purchase of the F35 was justified (among other reasons)as defense against hijacked airliners in the arctic, and just what are those hijacked airliners going to attack? and if such a scenario were to come about we don't need a F35 to take down an airliner....

Reread what you wrote. The "other reasons" are why we decided to purchase the F-35.

we don't need anything as expensive as the F35 to patrol the arctic...

5

That's not why we're buying them.

and just what in the last 65years have we needed to handle?... there won't be a war with any country that is that well equiped(Russia/China), any war we become involved in will be with under equiped 2nd and 3rd rate powers or insurgents...the F35 is overkill

By the time the F-18 is replaced in Canada it will be a 40 year old design. 2nd and 3rd rate powers have usually been equipped with comparable Russian fighters themselves anyways. Mig-29's and Su-27's are proliferated throughout the 3rd world, and are comparable to the F-16 and F-15 respectively. That's not exactly garbage hardware and if Canada were to enter a conflict against one of these powers the F-18 wouldn't really be at a huge technical advantage against them.

Take this premise another 10-20 years further and countries like Iran etc will be flying BETTER fighters than what we're flying.

and Canada is going to use the F35 to sink the next american ship that challenges our authority and sails through the NWP, rrright and when they start lining up super tankers full of crude oil to sail through the passage we're going to sink those with F35s too

I don't really think you have any idea what you're talking about. Why are we even talking about the Americans? If we claim the majority of the arctic I doubt they'd be upset about it. NAFTA ensures they have access to all those resources at a fair price already. Hell it'll be American owned subsidiaries that exploit the resources anyways.

can you even comprehend your links...at no time did a russian airplane EVER enter our airspace

They've flown their Bear bombers right up to the border of our airspace. Having worthwhile planes to patrol it acts as a deterrent.

and I'll ask again the question you nor anyone else can/will answer, just who is going to invade us? and why are they going to invade us?...you have no clue let alone an answer...

Unsurprisingly, you still don't get it, and a good many other things aside from that .

Nobody is going to invade us because big daddy USA is our closest neighbour. Having said that, it's not exactly fair or responsible to expect them to foot the bill for their own protection and for ours at the same time. Canada should be responsible for upholding its share of NORAD (in fact it is obligated to as far as I know) and we can't do that properly with 50+ year old hardware. You'd probably be happy if we were still flying patrol missions over Canadian airspace in Voodoos wouldn't you???

[segnosaur]

that you repeatedly don't comprehend it shows what? slow on the uptake are you?... the purchase of the F35 was justified (among other reasons)as defense against hijacked airliners in the arctic, and just what are those hijacked airliners going to attack? and if such a scenario were to come about we don't need a F35 to take down an airliner....

Straw man...

Nobody claimed there were targets in the arctic.

However, as it has been explained to you many times before, whatever planes we get will serve multiple functions... not only do they need to patrol the arctic but they need to handle situations similar to 9/11. We may also need to use them in a bombing role. (See below).

And while a cheaper plane might provide the basic functionality for basic air patrols, we can do a better job with a plane that is faster and/or has a longer range. (If you remember, during 9/11, Norad had no idea where the hijacked airliners were, and if they attempted to intercept them, they would have had to search for them. Greater speed/range would be an asset.)

And while there may be new planes that are cheaper than the F35, they are usually less capable. Some of us would rather have a plane capable of handling anything we ask of it, rather than, several years down the road, saying "We can't do that because we bought cheap-ass planes".

and just what in the last 65years have we needed to handle?... there won't be a war with any country that is that well equiped(Russia/China), any war we become involved in will be with under equiped 2nd and 3rd rate powers or insurgents...the F35 is overkill

Your argument illustrates your ignorance.

Once again... we do not only have to worry about air-to-air combat; we also occasionally have a need to engage in air to ground combat, something that cheaper planes cannot do.

And what country has attempted to fish in another's territorial waters? Oh right! Portugal did a few years ago in Canada.

again fisheries issue you have trouble telling the difference between a ship and a F35...a F35 is going to do what to a fishing boat???yes that's right nothing...

On the other hand, during the Turbot war, there actually was talk of Portugal sending forces over. That is the type of thing that deserves a strong military response.

no time did a russian airplane EVER enter our airspace[/u]

from your link " NORAD's Kucharek said ----- Moscow began flying its old Cold War routes in late 2006, he said, but have always remained in international airspace."

Fine they stayed in international air space.

Yet the Canadian armed forces thought it was a significant enough event to launch planes to intercept them. Ever wonder why?

So, does that mean you had no moral objection to the massacres and crimes against humanity that were happening in Kosovo? After all, NATO forces (including Canada) helped stop the killing of civilians.

and a F35 prevents this how????

Ummmm... in case you didn't know, NATO military actions in eastern europe (you know, the ones that stopped the massacre of civilians) consisted primarily of air to ground combat. We used or CF-18s in the Balkans in a bombing role.

Eventually the CF-18s will need to be replaced. (Believe it or not, planes DO wear out.) When they do, we might want the replacements to have the same capability. If we decided to buy a cheaper plane then they will not likely have the same air-to-ground capability. Any future Kosovo situations will result in Canada saying "Sorry we can't do anything about the genocide."

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo1/no1/doc/55-61-eng.pdf

If you were around in the late 30s/early 40s, would you have also objected to Canada participating in World war 2? After all, the war was way over in Europe, and we weren't at risk of getting invaded.

and I'll ask again the question you nor anyone else can/will answer, just who is going to invade us? and why are they going to invade us?...you have no clue let alone an answer...

Another straw man. Never claimed we were at risk of being invaded/occupied.

Your response was even more idiotic because I specifically dealt with the invasion issue when I worded the question.

So I will ask it once again: If you were around in the late 30s/early 40s, would you have also objected to Canada participating in World war 2? After all, the war was way over in Europe, and we weren't at risk of getting invaded.

Edited July 5, 2010 by segnosaur

[Smallc]

On the other hand, during the Turbot war, there actually was talk of Portugal sending forces over.

Spain

[wyly]

Straw man...

Nobody claimed there were targets in the arctic.

However, as it has been explained to you many times before, whatever planes we get will serve multiple functions... not only do they need to patrol the arctic but they need to handle situations similar to 9/11. We may also need to use them in a bombing role. (See below).

ZenOps -Posted 26 June 2010 - 10:31 AM

For use for arctic defense:

Anything in the air: Bombers, other fighters and hijacked commercial planes is what its primary role would be.

In the water: Ships in the Northwest passage.

And while a cheaper plane might provide the basic functionality for basic air patrols, we can do a better job with a plane that is faster and/or has a longer range. (If you remember, during 9/11, Norad had no idea where the hijacked airliners were, and if they attempted to intercept them, they would have had to search for them. Greater speed/range would be an asset.)

Your argument illustrates your ignorance.

the ignorance is yours alone, the range is no better than current fighters, speed the F18(mach 1.8) and a number of other aircrft are faster than the F35(1.6) and the F35 isn't suddenly going to be able to find a hijacked plane in airspace filled with civilian aircraft it still needs norad and it's going to what to a plane flying over New York? shoot it down oh ya that'll work out great...

Once again... we do not only have to worry about air-to-air combat; we also occasionally have a need to engage in air to ground combat, something that cheaper planes cannot do.

the A10 is a far better air to ground aircraft the F35 is not in it's league and it costs $20 million, the F35 60 million likely more...

On the other hand, during the Turbot war, there actually was talk of Portugal sending forces over. That is the type of thing that deserves a strong military response.

that would be Spain...

Fine they stayed in international air space.

so your point was...pointless...

Yet the Canadian armed forces thought it was a significant enough event to launch planes to intercept them. Ever wonder why?

because there's nothing more than our PM Captain Canada likes than a photo op showing how tough he is...and what did you think those dirty ruskies were going to do, steal our our seals?

Ummmm... in case you didn't know, NATO military actions in eastern europe (you know, the ones that stopped the massacre of civilians) consisted primarily of air to ground combat. We used or CF-18s in the Balkans in a bombing role.

and we need f35's to do what would can be done as well with F18s?

Eventually the CF-18s will need to be replaced. (Believe it or not, planes DO wear out.) When they do, we might want the replacements to have the same capability. If we decided to buy a cheaper plane then they will not likely have the same air-to-ground capability. Any future Kosovo situations will result in Canada saying "Sorry we can't do anything about the genocide."

the A10 has superior air to ground capability and is cheaper, much much cheaper...

Another straw man. Never claimed we were at risk of being invaded/occupied.

Your response was even more idiotic because I specifically dealt with the invasion issue when I worded the question.

bull shitte, it's the the heart of the issue, the claim is we need these planes for defense, your words-"Yet the Canadian armed forces thought it was a significant enough event to launch planes to intercept them. Ever wonder why?" you come up with the stupidest logic...

you clearly think we're under threat of attack from the russians...what's the point of attack if not for the purpose of invasion?...

So I will ask it once again: If you were around in the late 30s/early 40s, would you have also objected to Canada participating in World war 2? After all, the war was way over in Europe, and we weren't at risk of getting invaded.

feeble attempt to dodge the issue, a red herring ....the issue is defense-and I'll ask again the question you nor anyone else can/will answer, just who is going to invade us? and why are they going to invade us?...

[proximity6]

Price elasticity of demand measures the percentage change in quantity demanded caused by a percent change in price. As such, it measures the extent of movement along the demand curve. This elasticity is almost always negative and is usually expressed in terms of absolute value. If the elasticity is greater than 1 demand is said to be elastic; between zero and one demand is inelastic and if it equals one, demand is unit-elastic.(Represented by 'PED')

__________________________________________________________________________________

Ben 10 Games

[wyly]

Reread what you wrote. The "other reasons" are why we decided to purchase the F-35.

pointless...

That's not why we're buying them.

go through the thread...protect us from ruskies flying over our airspace...protecting our artic sovereignty...protecting us from portugese fisherman poaching our fish...protecting us from commercial airliners....

By the time the F-18 is replaced in Canada it will be a 40 year old design. 2nd and 3rd rate powers have usually been equipped with comparable Russian fighters themselves anyways. Mig-29's and Su-27's are proliferated throughout the 3rd world, and are comparable to the F-16 and F-15 respectively. That's not exactly garbage hardware and if Canada were to enter a conflict against one of these powers the F-18 wouldn't really be at a huge technical advantage against them.

russians don't sell top shelf equipment to unstable governments, the F18 super hornet is still in production and is still a top shelf plane and will be for a long time to come for less money, it's a better plane than third world nation can afford...and in the end it's air to air missiles that are the danger not the planes...

Take this premise another 10-20 years further and countries like Iran etc will be flying BETTER fighters than what we're flying.

Iran is going to invade us? we're going to invade Iran? wait I know, Iran is going to fly over our arctic islands!

I don't really think you have any idea what you're talking about. Why are we even talking about the Americans? If we claim the majority of the arctic I doubt they'd be upset about it. NAFTA ensures they have access to all those resources at a fair price already. Hell it'll be American owned subsidiaries that exploit the resources anyways.

you obviously have no clue, the issue is sovereignty of the Arctic and that includes the NWP which the americans say they can sail through anytime they wish and if they wish to sail oil tankers through it they will....the US claims Canada does not have sovereignty, a claim that Russia recognizes...forum numbskulls wet their undies when a russian plane flies near our airspace and insist on F35 to protect our arctic yet when a real threat to our sovereignty is demonstrated we do what with our more than capable F18s, nothing...and that's what the F35s will be good for, nothing...

They've flown their Bear bombers right up to the border of our airspace. Having worthwhile planes to patrol it acts as a deterrent.

a F18 is more than capable of the job of handling those scarrrrry russian planes... eeew I don't know how you sleep at night thinking about how scary russians might fly over an arctic island:rolleyes: ...

Unsurprisingly, you still don't get it, and a good many other things aside from that .

I think more than a few steps above you get a ladder and let me know when you've reached it...the issue is waaaay over your head...

Nobody is going to invade us because big daddy USA is our closest neighbour. Having said that, it's not exactly fair or responsible to expect them to foot the bill for their own protection and for ours at the same time. Canada should be responsible for upholding its share of NORAD (in fact it is obligated to as far as I know) and we can't do that properly with 50+ year old hardware. You'd probably be happy if we were still flying patrol missions over Canadian airspace in Voodoos wouldn't you???

what big daddy protects Chile from invasion? what big daddy protects Costa Rica from invasion? what big daddy protects Zimbabwe from invasion, what big daddy protects Cuba from invasion....right as with the other question who is going to invade us you have no answer,you can't even identify a potential enemy or give a reason why anyone would invade us.. admit it the real reason you want F35s is because you get wood thinking about big nasty weapons.... Edited July 6, 2010 by wyly

[Army Guy]

go through the thread...protect us from ruskies flying over our airspace...protecting our artic sovereignty...protecting us from portugese fisherman poaching our fish...protecting us from commercial airliners....

Air defense over the north is a major part of our NORAD defense agreement with the US, which includes intercepting any aircraft threat flying over the northern air space of north america....be it Russian , civil anything....Our NORAD agreements also include Maritime threats as well , being able to indentify and track any possiable threat in our northern waters....plus have the ability to engage any of these threats if deemed nessicary..... the F-35 gives more range and capabilities than any F-18 on the market today. In fact it has more range and capabilities than any other offered fighter that was being looked at...

Our other defense agreements also have a mandate that we has a nation be inter operable with other nations as well. Our NATO commitments dictate that we must be able to provide a Fighter, for air superiority and ground support as well. Our current F-18 fleet has little to none capabilty to fire or drop percision guide munitions....in fact we can drop dumb bombs, and fire the basic air to air missles....

And while it is almost a given that Canada will proably never fight a defensive engagement on it's own territory, our defensive agreements we have signed with other nations are not so forgiving....they have taken us to Kosovo, Serbia, Bosina, Afghanistan, and yet we have been some what lucky that none of these have had any serious air craft threats....but they have had some very modern air defense wpns....remember it was the serbs that shot down a F-117 stealth aircraft....

We as a nation have taken on some very deadly opponets in the past where having an edge in combat has made all the diffence....our history is also full of Canada's fighting men and women having to fight with sub par equipment...Ross rifle, Sherman tank, Iltis , we must not forget that these people we are straping into these machines are Canadians first and foremost, brothers and sisters , fathers and mothers....and if 10 bil gives them a edge in what ever mission we assign them i think that most Canadians would agree we should support them ......

russians don't sell top shelf equipment to unstable governments, the F18 super hornet is still in production and is still a top shelf plane and will be for a long time to come for less money, it's a better plane than third world nation can afford...and in the end it's air to air missiles that are the danger not the planes...

This is BS , Russians will sell anything to anyone, Iran just recieved one of the worlds most deadly air defense systems....It continues to sell it's top shelf aircraft to whom ever can pay the price tag....aircraft designed and built to counter the US F-15, F-18, F-16....Shit all one has to do is find a 3 rd world country and pull up it's inventory and it's full of Russian equipment....

Just check on whom the Russians have been selling planes to in the last 3 years....the list is full of 3 world countries,

NO in the end a fighter must close with an enemy aircraft to get close enough to launch it's missles....saying it's the missles thats the worry is just RTFO of there ....it's the platform thats going to get you into the kill zone...it's the platform thats also going to keep you there, or from becoming a kill yourself....

[Smallc]

Our current F-18 fleet has little to none capabilty to fire or drop percision guide munitions....in fact we can drop dumb bombs, and fire the basic air to air missles....

I don't believe that's true anymore. The latest upgrade changed that.

[GostHacked]

I don't believe that's true anymore. The latest upgrade changed that.

The F-18 is 30+ years old now. The air frames are most likely very fatigued. Time for a new fleet. It's old tech and will not be effective combating other newer aircraft.

[Smallc]

The F-18 is 30+ years old now. The air frames are most likely very fatigued. Time for a new fleet. It's old tech and will not be effective combating other newer aircraft.

Actually, with the latest update, even the centre barrel was replaced. It isn't old tech right now (the update brought it up to par with the mid 00s). It will be in 2020, and will need to be replaced then.

[GostHacked]

Actually, with the latest update, even the centre barrel was replaced. It isn't old tech right now (the update brought it up to par with the mid 00s). It will be in 2020, and will need to be replaced then.

They can change out the hardware like radar and weapons, it's the airframe itself that is quite fatigued. The airframe holds all the stuff together.

[Smallc]

They can change out the hardware like radar and weapons, it's the airframe itself that is quite fatigued. The airframe holds all the stuff together.

The centre barrel IS the airframe. Other pieces can be changed as needed around it.

[GostHacked]

The centre barrel IS the airframe. Other pieces can be changed as needed around it.

I've never heard it called a barrel. Fuselage sure ....

It's still old tech that will get smoked by new tech no matter how you try to frame it. If we have the chance to have one up on the 'enemy', then why not take it? 2020 might be too late.

[Smallc]

I don't see 2020 being too late. There aren't really all that many fighter jets out there today that significantly outclass the F-18....besides, we won't be able to get the F-35 until about then.

[GostHacked]

I don't see 2020 being too late. There aren't really all that many fighter jets out there today that significantly outclass the F-18....besides, we won't be able to get the F-35 until about then.

So if we wait until 2020 to purchase new planes, it will be 2030+ .... too late. If we can afford it now, why not do it? The longer we wait the more expensive it will be.

[Smallc]

No, I think you're missing me. We sign the contract within the next two years. We won't get the planes until about 2020. I'm very in favour of this purchase.

[Moonbox]

pointless...

Wyly you're suggesting we're purchasing stealth fighters to intercept jet liners over the arctic. That's ludicrously dumb. We're purchasing them to fulfill our NORAD obligations and, if necessary, project air power abroad with NATO partners. The F-35 is a strike fighter, much like the F-18, and its meant to be both an offensive and defensive weapon.

go through the thread...protect us from ruskies flying over our airspace...protecting our artic sovereignty...protecting us from portugese fisherman poaching our fish...protecting us from commercial airliners....

Two of the requirements of the Canada First Defence Strategy:

-Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period.

-Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periods.

Basically you don't know what you're talking about.

russians don't sell top shelf equipment to unstable governments, the F18 super hornet is still in production and is still a top shelf plane and will be for a long time to come for less money, it's a better plane than third world nation can afford...and in the end it's air to air missiles that are the danger not the planes...

You're only digging yourself a hole. Take a look at how widely distributed the Mig-29, Su-27 and Su-30 are. All of these planes are every bit as advanced as Canada's F-18's. As for the Super Hornet, the only reason it's called the Super Hornet is because it was easier to pass it through Congress with that name than proposing it as the brand new plane that it actually is. It's a completely different airframe and it would be a pointless marginal upgrade for Canada.

Iran is going to invade us? we're going to invade Iran? wait I know, Iran is going to fly over our arctic islands!

You're hilarious....

We don't know what we might need the planes for. That's the whole point. The equipment has to already be there when you need it or you're screwed. Hostile third world nations ALREADY have comparable (or better) airframes.

you obviously have no clue, the issue is sovereignty of the Arctic

That is ONE of the issues only.

a F18 is more than capable of the job of handling those scarrrrry russian planes... eeew I don't know how you sleep at night thinking about how scary russians might fly over an arctic island:rolleyes: ...

Actually, The Russians could blow our F-18's out of the air without blinking with even numbers over the arctic.

I think more than a few steps above you get a ladder and let me know when you've reached it...the issue is waaaay over your head...

I've highlighted several areas where what you're saying is false. If you're thinking above ANYONE on this forum, it's the head in the clouds burnout flunkie type thinking.

what big daddy protects Chile from invasion? what big daddy protects Costa Rica from invasion? what big daddy protects Zimbabwe from invasion, what big daddy protects Cuba from invasion....right as with the other question who is going to invade us you have no answer,you can't even identify a potential enemy or give a reason why anyone would invade us.. admit it the real reason you want F35s is because you get wood thinking about big nasty weapons....

The fact that you're still asking this question only proves that you're REALLY struggling here. We've already answered several times that it's unlikely anyone will 'invade' us. That being said, there are numerous scenarios I could think of, and obviously governments across the western world can think of, where we would need to project air power abroad to protect our interests. There have, in fact, been two instances of this in the last twenty years.

Perhaps this is too much mental exercise for you, but Canada doesn't live in a void. We are part of this world and there are many things that can and do affect us regularly all over the world. If not for the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein could have destabilized the entire middle east with profound implications on us. Your bus rides, for example, would be a lot more expensive as a result.

[segnosaur]

And while a cheaper plane might provide the basic functionality for basic air patrols, we can do a better job with a plane that is faster and/or has a longer range. (If you remember, during 9/11, Norad had no idea where the hijacked airliners were, and if they attempted to intercept them, they would have had to search for them. Greater speed/range would be an asset.)

Your argument illustrates your ignorance.

the ignorance is yours alone, the range is no better than current fighters, speed the F18(mach 1.8) and a number of other aircrft are faster than the F35(1.6)

Ummm....

Combat radius (from wikipedia):

F35: 610 nmi

JAS39 Grippen: 432 nmi

F18 SuperHornet: 390 nmi

Last time I checked, 610 nautical miles is actually a greater value than 432 or 390 (the ranges of 2 of the planes that have been suggested as alternatives to the F-35).

And yes, some alternatives are faster, but the F35 has a higher service ceiling than the JAS39 or F18. Its also capable of a higher take-off weight (useful if we should want to use either drop tanks, and/or large bombs.)

... and the F35 isn't suddenly going to be able to find a hijacked plane in airspace filled with civilian aircraft it still needs norad

On 9/11 the planes shut off their transponders. NORAD did not know where the hijacked planes were. Even if NORAD might help direct planes, there is no guarantee that the planes will automatically know where to find it. (Not to mention that the range of an airliner is much larger than any of the planes, and an F35 would be able to track any planes for much longer.)

and it's going to what to a plane flying over New York? shoot it down oh ya that'll work out great...

On 9/11, orders were given to shoot down airliners. It turns out that those orders were given/received too late to be effective. However, some people might consider that shooting down an airliner might be preferable to having an airliner crash into a building.

the A10 is a far better air to ground aircraft the F35 is not in it's league and it costs $20 million, the F35 60 million likely more...

Yes the A10 is a good air-to-ground attack aircraft. However, Canada is unlikely to buy multiple planes, each one to fill a different role.

The plan is to build a single plane, which is capable of handling multiple roles

Yet the Canadian armed forces thought it was a significant enough event to launch planes to intercept them. Ever wonder why?

because there's nothing more than our PM Captain Canada likes than a photo op showing how tough he is...

Except such interceptions were routine before Harper came to office.

and we need f35's to do what would can be done as well with F18s?

Even if F18s are "adequate" for some of the tasks that we would want, they will eventually wear out and need to be replaced. It takes years to have new planes delivered. That's why we should prepare to buy them now.

Another straw man. Never claimed we were at risk of being invaded/occupied.

Your response was even more idiotic because I specifically dealt with the invasion issue when I worded the question.

bull shitte, it's the the heart of the issue, the claim is we need these planes for defense, your words-"Yet the Canadian armed forces thought it was a significant enough event to launch planes to intercept them. Ever wonder why?" you come up with the stupidest logic...

What you are doing is cherry picking. Yes, I asid they need planes for defense of our our space, but at no point have I ever said that that was the only role that we might need.

So I will ask it once again: If you were around in the late 30s/early 40s, would you have also objected to Canada participating in World war 2? After all, the war was way over in Europe, and we weren't at risk of getting invaded.

feeble attempt to dodge the issue, a red herring ....the issue is defense-and I'll ask again the question you nor anyone else can/will answer, just who is going to invade us? and why are they going to invade us?...

I already admitted, multiple times, that we are not at a significant risk of being invaded/occupied. However I have pointed out the need to use planes in military conflicts to prevent humanitarian disasters/genocide.

So once again, I ask: If you were around in the late 30s/early 40s, would you have also objected to Canada participating in World war 2? After all, the war was way over in Europe, and we weren't at risk of getting invaded.

[Smallc]

Yes the A10 is a good air-to-ground attack aircraft. However, Canada is unlikely to buy multiple planes, each one to fill a different role.

Not to mention that the F-35 is set to replace the A-10 at the end of the next decade (2020s).

[segnosaur]

russians don't sell top shelf equipment to unstable governments, the F18 super hornet is still in production and is still a top shelf plane and will be for a long time to come for less money, it's a better plane than third world nation can afford...

You're only digging yourself a hole. Take a look at how widely distributed the Mig-29, Su-27 and Su-30 are. All of these planes are every bit as advanced as Canada's F-18's.

Moonbox is right.

Compare the Su-30 and the F18 Superhornet:

top speed: Su-30 Mach2, F18 Mach1.8

Service ceiling: Su-30 57k feet, F18: 50k feet

So, the Super Hornet is not exactly "on top".

And look at some of the countries that have the Su-30... Uganda (a 3rd world nation, with regular clashes between rebels and army forces in the north part of the country), Malaysia (fairly successful financially, but there have been accusations of illegal election activities against the ruling party), Indonesia (had separatists fighting there as recently as 2005s) and Algeria (which has experiences suicide attacks and other terrorist activities as recently as 2008).

[proximity6]

Eventually the CF-18s will need to be replaced. (Believe it or not, planes DO wear out.) When they do, we might want the replacements to have the same capability. If we decided to buy a cheaper plane then they will not likely have the same air-to-ground capability. Any future Kosovo situations will result in Canada saying "Sorry we can't do anything about the genocide."

__________________________________________________________

Used Auto Parts | Used Car Parts

[Topaz]

McKay is ordering new fighter jets and at a big cost of billions which we don't have. Is he using the VISA CARD again? Should the money go to other sectors instead? Thoughts? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/just-what-we-need-a-16-billion-fighter-jet/article1641373/

[DogOnPorch]

CF-18 Hornets DO wear out.

[bjre]

Money is what politics all about.

Those who take money is the winer, those who pay money is the loser.

If you are not satisfied with something, that is the opportunity politicians dreamed of, they can use any of this kind of chances to ask for more money.

People are always the losers, they have to pay whatever politicians managed to spend.

[GostHacked]

We already have en extensive thread on that subject :

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16512