Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 (edited) The F/A - 18E/F will be out of production in 2014, from what I read, and that's probably about 6 years too soon. The US will be replacing the Super Hornet in the mid 20s to early 30s with the - wait for it - F-35C. Edited June 9, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 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?... The F-18...but not the model we have...think of it like the Grand Caravan...the 1999 model is not the 2011 model....the super hornet is still in production...but that too will be replaced by the F-35 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 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. the F35 won't cope with S-400 (which has already been deployed) either in 10 yrs when the F35 is delivered...expect a S-500 to be in service by then as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 it makes more sense to buy something less expensive like the Gripen and boatload of S-400's from the Russians, add a few dozen of our own Nukes and we're safe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 the F35 won't cope with S-400 (which has already been deployed) either in 10 yrs when the F35 is delivered...expect a S-500 to be in service by then as well... Maybe, maybe not. It shows up as about the size of a gold ball on radar. It's not quite as stealthy as the F-22, but it's still hard to hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 Maybe, maybe not. It shows up as about the size of a gold ball on radar. It's not quite as stealthy as the F-22, but it's still hard to hit. If it is twice as effective as previous russian SAMs...it should be adequate against the technology of the 80s....Russian SAM technology has a serious drawback....it tends not to work very well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 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... No now you're just REEEEALLY missing the point. You're defeating your own argument. The AK-47 hasn't been upgraded over the last 60 years because it doesn't take sophisticated technology to shoot a bullet through a man. A kitchen knife similarly doesn't need to be upgraded because all it has to do is cut meat. A fighter plane is probably the most sophisticated piece of military technology out there and the weapons used to counter it are similarily sophisticated. The west has maintained its dominance over the last century BECAUSE of its technological edge. If we were still flying F-4 phantoms right now the Taliban would have laughed us out of Afghanistan. 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... It can stay ahead of SAM technology and it pretty much always has. It's not a futile game. There's not a SAM system out there right now that neutralizes the F-22 nor the F-35. Right now we're fighting third-world insurgents but what would happen if we needed to take action against Iran, or Saudi Arabia or anyone else with a military to speak of? You plan ahead in the military or you die. It's pretty simple stuff. 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 You read too much Wikipedia. While the Russians are ahead in missile technology, it's always been because they're significantly behind in fighter technology. Being behind in fighter technology means they don't really have anything to test their tracking systems against. The USA is leaps above the rest of the world in terms of stealth technology and they wouldn't be investing hundreds of billions into it if it was cheap and easy to counteract as you suggest. Stealth chasing systems at this point are mostly either theoretical or inprecise and nobody (including the Russians) have managed anything practical. Add to this the endlessly advancing list of electronic defenses available to aircraft and the West will continue to confound Russian air-defence systems as they have over the last several decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 Maybe, maybe not. It shows up as about the size of a gold ball on radar. It's not quite as stealthy as the F-22, but it's still hard to hit. this constant upgrading of latest and best is fools game(the taxpayer being the biggest fool)...the same thing went on for centuries with battleships, each superpower building a bigger more expensive ship than the other guys only to discover they were obsolete, wiped away by aircraft and carriers...the best planes today give an illusion of invincibilty because their battles are with adversaries thatdo not have the latest and best, attack a country with layers of S-300 and S-400's and that illusion will disappear...the US put considerable pressure for Russia not to sell the older S-300 to Iran why? because the US cannot have air superiority over Iran if it has the S-300(forget about the S-400)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 this constant upgrading of latest and best is fools game If modernizing every 20 years and buying new every 35 - 40 years makes us fools....then I'm not sure what would be smart. Would you keep a car for 40 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 ...., attack a country with layers of S-300 and S-400's and that illusion will disappear...the US put considerable pressure for Russia not to sell the older S-300 to Iran why? because the US cannot have air superiority over Iran if it has the S-300(forget about the S-400)... Saddam thought the same at the time of the Gulf war...layers and layers of AA and SAMs....they were systimatically destroyed with vintage vietnam aircraft tasked to seek out and destroy the launchers.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 No now you're just REEEEALLY missing the point. You're defeating your own argument. The AK-47 hasn't been upgraded over the last 60 years because it doesn't take sophisticated technology to shoot a bullet through a man. A kitchen knife similarly doesn't need to be upgraded because all it has to do is cut meat. try do some reading before you make silly claims...the AK47 has recieved numerous upgrades in it's history...A fighter plane is probably the most sophisticated piece of military technology out there and the weapons used to counter it are similarily sophisticated. The west has maintained its dominance over the last century BECAUSE of its technological edge. If we were still flying F-4 phantoms right now the Taliban would have laughed us out of Afghanistan. and the Taliban would have done what to a F-4?...that's right nothing an F-4 could still do the job...It can stay ahead of SAM technology and it pretty much always has. It's not a futile game. There's not a SAM system out there right now that neutralizes the F-22 nor the F-35. the russian claim the S-400 does exactly that and NATO respects that claim...Right now we're fighting third-world insurgents but what would happen if we needed to take action against Iran, or Saudi Arabia or anyone else with a military to speak of? You plan ahead in the military or you die. It's pretty simple stuff. Canada is going to war with Iran or Saudi Arabia??? it what alternate universe will this happen?You read too much Wikipedia. I read wiki? please show me a reference I've made to show that??? While the Russians are ahead in missile technology, it's always been because they're significantly behind in fighter technology. Being behind in fighter technology means they don't really have anything to test their tracking systems against. The USA is leaps above the rest of the world in terms of stealth technology and they wouldn't be investing hundreds of billions into it if it was cheap and easy to counteract as you suggest.badly misinformed the best Russian equipment is top quality, you're typical of armchair warriors watching the US military take on Russian export equipment of 3rd world countries and mistaking them for the best Russia has to offer...they choose to invest in missile technology because it's smart, it's cost effective it's their game plan since WW2(build it strong, build it cheap and build many to overwhelm the opponent)and makes sure they are always ahead of the game in defense...Stealth chasing systems at this point are mostly either theoretical or inprecise and nobody (including the Russians) have managed anything practical. Add to this the endlessly advancing list of electronic defenses available to aircraft and the West will continue to confound Russian air-defence systems as they have over the last several decades.and you know this how??? how exactly is the west confounding Russian air-defenses which are in place before the west has developed the means to overcome them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 If modernizing every 20 years and buying new every 35 - 40 years makes us fools....then I'm not sure what would be smart. Would you keep a car for 40 years? there are a few I wish I had kept....I don't have issues with new planes only wasting it on planes we don't need, I'd love a gas guzzling Aston Martin but thats not practical when a Toyota will do the job just fine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 this constant upgrading of latest and best is fools game(the taxpayer being the biggest fool)...the same thing went on for centuries with battleships, each superpower building a bigger more expensive ship than the other guys only to discover they were obsolete, wiped away by aircraft and carriers... Anyone ever tell you analogy is the worst form of argument? Battleship obsolesence didn't happen over night. We went through a 20 year paradigm shift to air power which was anticipated and accounted for by both the US and Japanese navies. The battleship still maintained its roll but was simply superceded by the carrier in range and firepower as the primary asset of the fleet. Battleships were replaced by --- now get this --- bigger and more expensive ships. the best planes today give an illusion of invincibilty because their battles are with adversaries thatdo not have the latest and best, attack a country with layers of S-300 and S-400's and that illusion will disappear...the US put considerable pressure for Russia not to sell the older S-300 to Iran why? because the US cannot have air superiority over Iran if it has the S-300(forget about the S-400)... Here's a question --- if the best planes today are easily wiped out with cheap Russian SAM systems, why are the Russians still developing 5th generation fighters like the JSF? Ever heard of the Pak Fa? Clearly most of the world's most brilliant military designers and thinkers are all on board with this apparently colossal stupidity... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 (edited) try do some reading before you make silly claims...the AK47 has recieved numerous upgrades in it's history... I'm stunned you're still not grasping this concept. The AK-47 is rifle. You point pull trigger it go boom boom. and the Taliban would have done what to a F-4?...that's right nothing an F-4 could still do the job... Really? Well in the 60's the Vietnamese managed to shoot down hundreds of them so..... the russian claim the S-400 does exactly that and NATO respects that claim... Let's see a citation on that please...where NATO respects that claim. The Russians have claimed a lot of things about their SAM systems in the past. The fact that NATO and the Russians are still developing $100 million dollar fighters puts your claim into question.... Canada is going to war with Iran or Saudi Arabia??? it what alternate universe will this happen? Wow you really have trouble following a concept through to the point don't you. I'm merely suggesting the possibility that we won't always be fighting just the Taliban or Somalians. I read wiki? please show me a reference I've made to show that??? badly misinformed the best Russian equipment is top quality, you're typical of armchair warriors watching the US military take on Russian export equipment of 3rd world countries and mistaking them for the best Russia has to offer Badly misinformed? How many fifth-generation fighters are the Russians fielding now? How many super carriers does it have on the ocean? They're at a tremendous economical disadvantage and while some of their tech is pretty impressive they've not had the means to develop most of it. Perhaps I phrased my response poorly, as it's more a matter of their military industrial capacity being SIGNIFICANTLY less capable than that of the West than their actual designs. ...they choose to invest in missile technology because it's smart, it's cost effective it's their game plan since WW2(build it strong, build it cheap and build many to overwhelm the opponent)and makes sure they are always ahead of the game in defense... So the Russians invested in missiles because they're smart, and the Americans invested in fighters because they're dumb? Riiight. The Russians invested in missiles because they could never match NATO in terms of air power. Instead of investing money they didn't have in a race they knew they couldn't win anyways, they chose a cheaper and less effective alternative that could give them SOME air defense capabilities at much lower cost. and you know this how??? how exactly is the west confounding Russian air-defenses which are in place before the west has developed the means to overcome them... The west has been beating Russian air defenses all along. They did it in Vietnam. They did it in Iraq. They did it in the 6 day war. The proof is in the pudding. The Russians are developing their own $100 million fighter. Why would they do this if they've already rendered it obsolete. Answer that or step down buddy. Edited June 9, 2010 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 If modernizing every 20 years and buying new every 35 - 40 years makes us fools....then I'm not sure what would be smart. Would you keep a car for 40 years? Im not gonna borrow money to buy something unless the purchase holds up to a cost/benefit analysis. Is this the most important place for our government to spend 10 Billion borrowed dollars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 Is this the most important place for our government to spend 10 Billion borrowed dollars? The government will be spending many other billions on many other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 Doesn't work that way. The military needs to be continually brought up to par, technology continues to change and evolve and equipment always needs to be replaced and upgraded, and new classes of equipment come into existence (i.e. satellites, drones, etc). We'll be investing a lot in military robotics over the upcoming decades if we continue to have any interest in keeping up with other nations. What you just listed is what I consider maintenance for a military. What we are doing is spending enough to get up to the current standard then we will be able to reduce spending and keep ourselves at the same level as the other western nations. This does'nt involve the shipbuilding policy I heared about a few days ago,is it? Because that involved 30 billion over 30 years,or something like that... That's a different project but being done for the same reason, getting our military up to par. the AK47 is how old? 60 years and is the most popular weapon on the planet and it will be around for another 60yrs...new doesn't always mean better or more effective we could buy more F-18's and they'd still be effective for another 40 years... Um... AK's are constantly being updated, you think the AK they made after world war 2 is the same as AK's today? They're not. I mean there are dozens of variants. The reason they are being used is because there are a lot of them and they're cheap, plus they're very reliable. But there are plenty of better guns out there. And let's consider too that technology isn't everything. The US got their butts kicked out of Vietnam, the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and heck, we're struggling in Afghanistan against Ak47s. No we're struggling against IED's the enemy guns are a minor problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 (edited) $90 million price tag. with $50 million markup. 1. Not needed. - but required for face. HUGE misapproriation. 2. Cost is too high - due to contracting. 3. What is Canada going to do with them? That is the big question. WHY? What mission can these be used in? That less inexpensive missle systems can't be. hypersonic missles nuclear tipped, or nuetron tipped, etc.. would be a better investment of 9 billion. Because canada don't have any land borders with anyone but the US and only a quick strike obliteration of the US will be proactive in defence against our neighbour.. outside of this.. who are we at war with? Who does canada expect to need to use F35's against, other than taxpayers wallets. Edited June 9, 2010 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 Um... AK's are constantly being updated, you think the AK they made after world war 2 is the same as AK's today? They're not. I mean there are dozens of variants. The reason they are being used is because there are a lot of them and they're cheap, plus they're very reliable. But there are plenty of better guns out there. Ummm nice now try read the rest of the thread....Ak47 has been rated as the best weapon out there...cheap is irrelevant if your weapon lets you down, reliability is everything when the lead is flying this thing is nearly indestructible that's why it's the weapon of choice for armies everywhere which is also why they're plentiful, they the best thing out there... at least for those that aren't hung up it being a soviet design... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 1. Not needed. - but required for face. HUGE misapproriation. yup, it's a pissing match, who's got the bigger gun... 2. Cost is too high - due to contracting.there are better options out there3. What is Canada going to do with them? That is the big question. WHY?What mission can these be used in? That less inexpensive missle systems can't be. which is what I keep asking and no one can answerhypersonic missles nuclear tipped, or nuetron tipped, etc.. would be a better investment of 9 billion. Because canada don't have any land borders with anyone but the US and only a quick strike obliteration of the US will be proactive in defence against our neighbour.. outside of this.. who are we at war with? Who does canada expect to need to use F35's against, other than taxpayers wallets.exactly the only threat to us comes from beyond the 49th and these F35 wonder planes will do nothing to protect us should our neighbour decide it wants our resources... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 yup, it's a pissing match, who's got the bigger gun... If we were worried about that, we'd be buying twice as many as we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Ummm nice now try read the rest of the thread....Ak47 has been rated as the best weapon out there...cheap is irrelevant if your weapon lets you down, reliability is everything when the lead is flying this thing is nearly indestructible that's why it's the weapon of choice for armies everywhere which is also why they're plentiful, they the best thing out there... at least for those that aren't hung up it being a soviet design... Sure for 3rd world milita's capable of absolutely nothing other than killing civilians and not able to do basic maintanence. Let's compare the AK to say the C-7 C-7 Cartridge 5.56x45mm NATO Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt Rate of fire 700–900 rounds/min Muzzle velocity 900 m/s (3030 ft/s) Effective range 400 m (440 yd) (effective); 600 m (660 yd) (effective in a section) Feed system Various 30-round STANAG magazines. Weight 3.3 kg (7.3 lb) (unloaded) 3.9 kg (8.6 lb) (with 30-round magazine) Length 100.6 cm (39.6 in) Barrel length 508 mm (20.0 in) AK Cartridge 7.62x39mm M43 Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt Rate of fire 600 rounds/min Muzzle velocity 715 m/s (2,346 ft/s) Effective range 300 metres (330 yd) full automatic[4] 400 metres (440 yd) semi-automatic[4] Feed system 20 or 30-round detachable box magazine, also compatible with 40-round box or 75-round drum magazines from the RPK Weight 4.3 kg (9.5 lb) with empty magazine Length 870 mm (34.3 in) fixed wooden stock 875 mm (34.4 in) folding stock extended 645 mm (25.4 in) stock folded Barrel length 415 mm (16.3 in) Give you one guess which gun I would rather have. at least for those that aren't hung up it being a soviet design... It's got nothing to do with being Russian, the current generation of Russian tanks are incredible, I'd still rather have the leopards we currently have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 ...exactly the only threat to us comes from beyond the 49th and these F35 wonder planes will do nothing to protect us should our neighbour decide it wants our resources... Gee....Serbia was asking Canada the same question back in 1999. Bombs away! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdogfood Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) delete! Edited June 10, 2010 by msdogfood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdogfood Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Gee....Serbia was asking Canada the same question back in 1999. Bombs away! Ok what about this Dassault Rafale Would that meet our requirements?? or Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet JAS 39 Gripen or... Dassault Mirage 2000 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.