dre Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 The airforce seems to think that is needs a fifth generation fighter though...so we won't be getting anything but the F-35. What REALLY? The airforce wants expensive high end shit? STOP THE PRESSES. How about they outline their case for needing it and outline the likely scenarios in which those planes will ever be used to defend Canadian soil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 What REALLY? The airforce wants expensive high end shit? STOP THE PRESSES. How about they outline their case for needing it and outline the likely scenarios in which those planes will ever be used to defend Canadian soil? I'm sure there will. According to a cited sentence on Wiki, the CF-188s have been used about 400 times a year for various call outs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 I'd like to point out that classifying this contract as a "no-bid" contract is a little disingenuous. It's not as though several different companies make these planes. It'd be like wanting to purchase 65 Ipads, and then being shocked when only Apple is involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 I'd like to point out that classifying this contract as a "no-bid" contract is a little disingenuous. It's not as though several different companies make these planes. It'd be like wanting to purchase 65 Ipads, and then being shocked when only Apple is involved. I would add that... As a result of the Canadian government investment in the JSF project, 144 contracts were awarded to Canadian companies, universities, and government facilities. Financially, the contracts are valued at US$490 million for the period 2002 to 2012, with an expected value of US$1.1 billion from current contracts in the period between 2013 and 2023, and a total potential estimated value of Canadian JSF involvement from US$4.8 billion to US$6.8 billion.[157] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 What REALLY? The airforce wants expensive high end shit? STOP THE PRESSES. How about they outline their case for needing it and outline the likely scenarios in which those planes will ever be used to defend Canadian soil? Like I said, a hand-held anti-aircraft rocket launcher is just as effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 Like I said, a hand-held anti-aircraft rocket launcher is just as effective. Yes, they're very good at intercepting aircraft off the coast of the arctic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 Like I said, a hand-held anti-aircraft rocket launcher is just as effective. Against helicopters, yes. Against jets, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 Against helicopters, yes. Against jets, no. Yes, I'm not sure there are many hand held anti aircraft devices that can shoot down an F-35 at 60K feet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 Yes, I'm not sure there are many hand held anti aircraft devices that can shoot down an F-35 at 60K feet. LOL. Exactly. Especially considering the speeds they fly at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 LOL. Exactly. Especially considering the speeds they fly at. Speaking of speed, that is one of the drawbacks of an F-35. It's actually rather slow in comparison to other fighters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 What REALLY? The airforce wants expensive high end shit? STOP THE PRESSES. How about they outline their case for needing it and outline the likely scenarios in which those planes will ever be used to defend Canadian soil? I think the Tories should be calling this another "harmonizing" with the US military. You know we help each other out, hey right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 But.....just a few F-35s could probably blow them all out of the sky. very doubtfulthe Gripen is well rated and much less costly...and which countries F35's do you envision us taking on?...you're not thinking logically any country that has that capability is not our enemy...any country that has that capability can take us out in a matter of hours regardless on the type of plane we purchase...we're little boys playing with the big boys, having big boy toys does not make us one of them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 How many hand-held anti-aircraft weapons could we buy for the price of one of these aircraft? Hand-held AA are not really great at shooting down fighter aircraft. They might get lucky here and there but they're primarily used to shoot slower or more low flying aircraft like helicopters, transports, gunships and things like A-10's and Su-25's. We could probably buy tens of thousands of them, but they'd not help us defend against high speed strike craft, nor would they be any good offensively. Add to that that if the aircraft spots a soldier, a missile is an expensive way to get a few soldiers. If a soldier spots an airplane, a rocket of probably no more than a few hundred dollars could take a multi-million dollar airplane out of the air. Gee, you sure sound smart. Unfortunately an F-18 (or F-35 for that matter) isn't really meant to strafe an individual soldier but rather strike high value, high profile targets or provide support to ground troops as they require. Aside from that, 'the rockets' you speak of don't do what you say they do anyways. Think about it. Learn what you're talking about first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 ....Add to that that if the aircraft spots a soldier, a missile is an expensive way to get a few soldiers. If a soldier spots an airplane, a rocket of probably no more than a few hundred dollars could take a multi-million dollar airplane out of the air. Not very likely...the seeker head alone would cost more than that. How many fighter aircraft have been downed by your cheaper (non existent) solution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 F35, a more expensive target for the Taliban's hand-held anti-aircraft weapons. I don't think anyone has sold the Taliban the type of hand held weapon that the US sold the Mujhadeen, at best they have RPG's which if lucky can take down a low flying chopper...if they we're being equiped with Stingers that war would be over by now we couldn't sustain the financial and human cost of our choppers being taken down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 very doubtfulthe Gripen is well rated and much less costly But it isn't stealth, and it can't fly as far. We are a large country...and we need an aircraft that can fly farther than what we currently have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 Not very likely...the seeker head alone would cost more than that. How many fighter aircraft have been downed by your cheaper (non existent) solution? $38,000 US per unit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 Use your brain. Comparing an assault rifle to a fighter jet is like comparing a kitchen knife to a submarine. It doesn't make sense. The AK-47 is simple, cheap design that requires no training and is easy to maintain. It's perfect for third world armies and militia and there's been no reason to improve on the design because there have been no improvements in human flesh over that time. Advances in body armor could render the AK-47 much less useful against modern well-equipped infantry, but until that time there's no need.apparently you're not using your brain, you missed the point...despite massive differences in technology high tech has it's limits...a kitchen knife will kill you as sure as a F35...A fighter plane, on the other hand, has to contend with advances in countless different technologies to stay ahead. it cannot stay ahead of SAM technology it's a futile game...F35's to take out insurgents and third world countries that can't even cope with a F18 is just dumb... I'm not sure you really know what you're talking about. Considering that the USA, the most advanced military in the world, is investing something like $350B to purchase thousands of F-35's I think it's safe to say they're confident that present day and forseeable future SAM won't be able to compete with their fighter design. If you knew anything about the F-35 you'd know it's designed as a stealth fighter, and thus evade detection in the first place. Thus far there's been no indication that modern SAM can render cutting-edge fighters ineffective. I'm sure you really don't what you're talking about, before the first F35's roll out the Russians have SAM's that neutralize the F35's...the current stealth technology was designed to overcome the previous generation of Russian SAM technology the S-300 and it's varient...the Russians have already moved on to the S-400 Triumf anti-stealth SAM's, the Russians are continually ahead in missile technology...those cutting edge fighters are already ineffective and they aren't even in service Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 But it isn't stealth, and it can't fly as far. We are a large country...and we need an aircraft that can fly farther than what we currently have. why? our F18's are doing the job now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 I'm sure you really don't what you're talking about, before the first F35's roll out the Russians have SAM's that neutralize the F35's...the current stealth technology was designed to overcome the previous generation of Russian SAM technology the S-300 and it's varient...the Russians have already moved on to the S-400 Triumf anti-stealth SAM's, the Russians are continually ahead in missile technology...those cutting edge fighters are already ineffective and they aren't even in service Russian SAM tech doesn't have an enviable track record....since the mid 70s against 1000s of sorties they have only downed a couple of handful of aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 why? our F18's are doing the job now... Aircraft have life spans...after a certain number of hours in the air, they become museum pieces....costing more to keep flying than to replace...with more time in the hanger for repairs than in the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 why? our F18's are doing the job now... And they're going to get too old to do the job in about a decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 very doubtfulthe Gripen is well rated and much less costly...and which countries F35's do you envision us taking on?...you're not thinking logically any country that has that capability is not our enemy...any country that has that capability can take us out in a matter of hours regardless on the type of plane we purchase...we're little boys playing with the big boys, having big boy toys does not make us one of them... The Gripen is a cheap and robust aircraft designed with the Swedish defensive strategy in mind. The real thing it has going for it is a pretty good cost for performance ration, but it's not really comparable to other 5th generation fighters in terms of performance. In mock battles with Norwegian F-16's the Gripen won 'most' of its dogfights. It's not expected to provide huge advantages (other than cost and flexibility) over current 4th generation fighters nor is it expected to be able to cope with advanced AA weapons like the S-300 or S-400. There's no point really in 'upgrading' to the Gripen if we hang on to our fighters for 20+ years like we did with the Hornet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZenOps Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 (edited) Nuclear arms would definitely be a good investment. Doesn't seem politically viable in Canada, however. Imagine the headlines if Harper proposed a plan to produce nuclear weapons... Oh and put me down as 100% in support of building the space elevator. Can't build a space elevator in Canada, it must be at the equator and away from any jet stream. If we bought out the British Caicos first, then a space elevator would be viable. But before that can happen Canada needs more naval capacity to actually build up the island. To build up the island with just airplanes/ports would take 10x longer than the mass transport a good and effective navy can provide. Naval capacity first, Caicos second, Space elevator third. Things must be done in order or its just a waste of money - like getting airplane fighters. One spy satellite is easily worth 100 reconnasiance aircraft. Edited June 9, 2010 by ZenOps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 And they're going to get too old to do the job in about a decade. that maybe but their less expensive options that will do the job just fine...and if I recall the F18 will be in production for another decade and will still be in use in the US so if it's good enough for them why isn't it good enough for us?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.