Derek 2.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Like I said, they're still operating the last model, before these jets...in the case of France, the model before that also. There's not much danger of any of the 3 jets being totally out of anyone's inventory before 2040 at the earliest, probably longer. If they aren't out of the inventory of their current users, they will be heading that way, well Canada will require decades more service of an obsolete aircraft........the one upside, our then frontline aircraft, will be quite the attraction at airshows, much like classic warbirds are today. Edited November 16, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 If they aren't out of the inventory of their current users, they will be heading that way, well Canada will require decades more service of an obsolete aircraft........the one upside, our then frontline aircraft, will be quite the attraction at airshows, much classic warbirds are today. 10 parts hyperbole and about 1 part truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Here's a website called Gripen for Canada. It recommends the Gripen on the basis of range, low operating cost and higher speed. Thoughts? Said blog is using figures of the now decades old Gripen that is currently in service with the Swedish air force, but is being replaced by the Gripen NG.......Saab has pulled itself from the proposed competition for the simple reason that they know Canada has no need for a light fighter intended to attack the Soviet hordes invading our country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 10 parts hyperbole and about 1 part truth. No, grounded in reality, as the production of the Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter are to cease within this decade, as the current main users all have concurrent replacement programs to replace said aircraft in the 2030s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 No, grounded in reality, as the production of the Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter are to cease within this decade, as the current main users all have concurrent replacement programs to replace said aircraft in the 2030s. Actually, the Rafale will probably proceed into the early 2020s in terms of productions with new orders. The same is true of the Super Hornet if it gets an order for say....65 aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Actually, the Rafale will probably proceed into the early 2020s in terms of productions with new orders. The same is true of the Super Hornet if it gets an order for say....65 aircraft. It might, but then such aircraft could very well become the mainstay of third world nations, much like the Mig-21 and the F-5 tiger is today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 This website claims that Europe is buying the F35 as a "ground pounder" to replace the Tornado, not as a replacement for the Eurofighter. Despite all the claims of the JSF's advantages due to stealth, situational awareness, etc; at the end of the day, it is still a ground pounder. A bomb truck. Don't get me wrong, strike is a very important role, and the F-35 may indeed be the best aircraft ever for that role, but when it comes to air-superiority duties, like interception and combat air patrol (CAP), the Lightning II may be somewhat out of its element. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 This website claims that Europe is buying the F35 as a "ground pounder" to replace the Tornado, not as a replacement for the Eurofighter. That's odd......since "Europe" isn't a nation, but of the majority of intended European F-35 users, the F-35 will replace the F-16 as said nations multirole fighter.........The Americans, without a doubt, will use their F-35s as a "ground pounder", likewise the majority contribution to their NORAD commitment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Said blog is using figures of the now decades old Gripen that is currently in service with the Swedish air force, but is being replaced by the Gripen NG.......Saab has pulled itself from the proposed competition for the simple reason that they know Canada has no need for a light fighter intended to attack the Soviet hordes invading our country. If the argument is for a plane to defend North American airspace, it would seem that the Gripen is the right choice. If the argument is for a ground attack plane, I think we'd be better off with nothing. All of the military engagements we've had in the past few decades have not made Canada safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 That's odd......since "Europe" isn't a nation, but of the majority of intended European F-35 users, the F-35 will replace the F-16 as said nations multirole fighter.........The Americans, without a doubt, will use their F-35s as a "ground pounder", likewise the majority contribution to their NORAD commitment. Then maybe they're buying the wrong plane. Based on what I've read, the F35 is expensive to buy expensive to operate, expensive to maintain and isn't especially fast or maneuverable. It has stealth. it seems like it's giving up a lot for a feature that hasn't even been proven in air-to-air combat yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) If the argument is for a plane to defend North American airspace, it would seem that the Gripen is the right choice. If we want the best available for just that, it's the Typhoon. On cost grounds, we'll get the Super Hornet, with a lower chance of the Rafale. The Typhoon, though less likely, is the best to tangle in the air. Edited November 16, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 If the argument is for a plane to defend North American airspace, it would seem that the Gripen is the right choice. If the argument is for a ground attack plane, I think we'd be better off with nothing. All of the military engagements we've had in the past few decades have not made Canada safer. Well no, it isn't.......the Gripen was designed, by the Swedes, primarily as an anti-tank/ground attack aircraft. The Gripen is one of the least suited aircraft for Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 If we want the best available for just that, it's the Typhoon. Gripen is cheaper, I believe both to purchase and to operate. We'd be better having more gripens than fewer typhoons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Gripen is cheaper, I believe both to purchase and to operate. We'd be better having more gripens than fewer typhoons? 1 Typhoon could probably take care of a whole squadron of most other fighters. It's a lot like the F-15 in that way. I forget their kill ratio, but it's ridiculous. Both of course, are nothing compared to the F-22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Then maybe they're buying the wrong plane. Based on what I've read, the F35 is expensive to buy expensive to operate, expensive to maintain and isn't especially fast or maneuverable. It has stealth. it seems like it's giving up a lot for a feature that hasn't even been proven in air-to-air combat yet. Well no, they're not, they designed the aircraft, in partnership with allies, to replace current multirole aircraft in each nations service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 This is insane...so much expertise on what other nations have done and are doing to procure tactical aircraft while Canada continues to dither. The most laughable part is criticizing the choices other nations have made while being unable to do the same. Kick that can down the road some more Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 1 Typhoon could probably take care of a whole squadron of most other fighters. Seems like hyperbole to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 This is insane...so much expertise on what other nations have done and are doing to procure tactical aircraft while Canada continues to dither. The most laughable part is criticizing the choices other nations have made while being unable to do the same. Kick that can down the road some more Canada. No, what is insane, is the selection of the new head of the program, with a staff of 2 or 3 people........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Seems like hyperbole to me. I believe the kill ratio at war games for the F-15 is 21:1. The Typhoon is apparently a better air to air fighter than even the F-15. Also, I didn't realize that Kuwait had gone with the Typhoon and not the Super Hornet. It may be an interesting 3 way race. Edited November 16, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 ...not yet received their entire order. The US Navy is also ordering more Super Hornets. They'll be around until about 2040. No matter what we pick will be just fine for the next 30 years. The US airforce has all kinds of aircraft from "top of the line" to "serviceable". If they were going to go with just 1 type of aircraft do you think it would be something that's just ok? Canada's defence needs are different from Germany and France as well. A cessna can fly right across either of those countries, year round, on a tank of gas and get back (that's an important distinction). Our air force flies fighters mostly out of Bagotville, north bay, comox and cold lake to protect 10M square kilometers and it gets down well below minus 40 with metronome consistency here. We need a fighter with longer range and it also has to work in extreme weather conditions compared to those German and French fighetr planes. Every single plane we have needs to be able to do everything, we can't just get some for this and some for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 No, what is insane, is the selection of the new head of the program, with a staff of 2 or 3 people........... The initial staff numbers will obviously rise. The Conservatives closed the Secretariat altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 The US airforce has all kinds of aircraft from "top of the line" to "serviceable". If they were going to go with just 1 type of aircraft do you think it would be something that's just ok? The F-18 was just okay. The F-35 is just okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) The F-18 was just okay. The F-35 is just okay. There are things that you don't know about our military just from reading Jane's. Even if you were in the military you wouldn't know a whole lot about things within your own branch of the service that weren't within your specific field. I was never in the air force so I don't know exactly what capabilities the f-18 did have, what it's limitations are/were. That's not just in terms of how far, how fast, how much weight it can take off with, it includes things like what systems it can employ, what it can upgrade to, what types of armaments it can/can't carry, etc. The CF-18 was able to do everything from aid in search and rescue to shy of heavy bombing. The price of a fighter plane is irrelevant if it can't do what it needs to do when the time comes for it to do something important. We can'y buy a fighter that just does most of the stuff we need it to do. Edited November 16, 2015 by WestCanMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 The F-18 was just okay. The F-35 is just okay. But Canada ain't even buying "just OK". When Canada goes shopping at the strike fighter dealership, the sales staff points it to the economy lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) delete plz lol Edited November 16, 2015 by WestCanMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.