F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[Smallc]

Will Canada pay the development costs....alone ?

Canada won't buy the Typhoon, it's too expensive. I was simply speaking on a theoretical tangent.

[Smallc]

and too inexpensive for us.

I was with you until that point.

[Derek 2.0]

Which has absolutely - zero - to do with fighter sales. That, and said manufacturers all receive subsidies from their own governments.

Sure it does.........Boeing and Airbus value their own airline sales far more than a small fighter order with the GoC.........The Government of the United States and France aren't in the airline business.

[ReeferMadness]

I'm not going to rehash the debate with you.........Saab clearly pulled it's own Gripen NG from the Canadian competition because it too well suited and too inexpensive for us.

In other words, you've made up your mind and won't look at information that doesn't support your foregone conclusion. Which seems to be exactly the attitude that created the F35 debacle in the first place.

The Americans appear to have a strategy that sees their subservient allies subsidize their industry by buying overpriced, underperforming bomb trucks to support their 3rd world incursions. All the while, they save the air superiority planes for themselves.

I would prefer that Canada pursued an independent defence policy.

[Derek 2.0]

It could be, that's my point.

Well it's not, hence the Typhoon isn't better than the F-15 armed with them.

[ReeferMadness]

Canada won't buy the Typhoon, it's too expensive. I was simply speaking on a theoretical tangent.

It's not more expensive than the butterball.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada won't buy the Typhoon, it's too expensive. I was simply speaking on a theoretical tangent.

Well, I wasn't. Canada has consistently refused to pay the piper for such development or has bailed from such contracts to meet its "special needs"

Analysis paralysis.....

[ReeferMadness]

I'm not an expert, I just read a lot. That doesn't mean I'm always right.

I was going to add this to the discussion:

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Rafale-com-2-tanques-2000-l-2-tanques-1250-l-e-casulo-Buddy-Buddy.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--mr28n2iU--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/s4r6l9pjahrhxztgvjvk.jpg

This is something that the Super Hornet and Rafale can do. Useful in Canada's north, I would think.

Air to air refuelling? The gripen can do that as well.

[Derek 2.0]

In other words, you've made up your mind and won't look at information that doesn't support your foregone conclusion. Which seems to be exactly the attitude that created the F35 debacle in the first place.

I've provided page, after page, of information in the several other F-35 threads, I'm not going to provide it, yet again, for you.

[ReeferMadness]

Well, I wasn't. Canada has consistently refused to pay the piper for such development or has bailed from such contracts to meet its "special needs"

Analysis paralysis.....

Awwww - worried about your shares in Lockheed Martin?

[Smallc]

Sure it does.........Boeing and Airbus value their own airline sales far more than a small fighter order with the GoC.........The Government of the United States and France aren't in the airline business.

Boeing and Airbus get subsidies in different forms all of the time. You yourself called the Rafale a subsidy for Dassault.

[Smallc]

Air to air refuelling? The gripen can do that as well.

Has it ever been used in the buddy refuelling configuration?

[ReeferMadness]

Has it ever been used in the buddy refuelling configuration?

I don't know why I provide these links. Clearly, everyone here has already made up their minds and nobody reads them.

How about the aerial refuelling? The Gripen utilizes a "probe-and-drogue" system as currently used by Canada's current CF-18, along with a great deal of NATO allies, including the U.S. Navy. Although the older Sweden only A and B models had no inflight refuelling, the newer C and D models along with the "Next Generation" E and F models use the system. They should have no problems refuelling mid-air from a RCAF CC-150 Polaris or even a CC-130 Hercules equipped with refuelling pods. Just like the current CF-18 currently does.

[Derek 2.0]

Boeing and Airbus get subsidies in different forms all of the time. You yourself called the Rafale a subsidy for Dassault.

Then you better go represent the GoC at the WTO......they tried that argument against Embraer in the 90s.

[Smallc]

I don't know why I provide these links. Clearly, everyone here has already made up their minds and nobody reads them.

I know it can be refuelled in the air - I'm not disputing that. The Rafale and Super Hornet can become AAR aircraft themselves.

[Smallc]

I don't know why I provide these links. Clearly, everyone here has already made up their minds and nobody reads them.

And for the record, I haven't made up my mind. It doesn't really much matter, for our uses, what we get, so long as it is a competitive aircraft.

[Smallc]

Then you better go represent the GoC at the WTO......they tried that argument against Embraer in the 90s.

There isn't a dispute yet.

[ReeferMadness]

I know it can be refuelled in the air - I'm not disputing that. The Rafale and Super Hornet can become AAR aircraft themselves.

Sounds handy but is that enough of a reason to make a decision?

[Smallc]

Sounds handy but is that enough of a reason to make a decision?

Well, look at it from this angle - when a threat to Canadian airspace is detected, 2 CF-18s are launched, with 2 others launched soon after, or kept in reserve, depending on the distance. If one of each pair was equipped for AAR, with a full fuel load, while still having a small armament, they could go direct to the site without having to stop to refuel.

[Derek 2.0]

There isn't a dispute yet.

There is currently two disputes, to be paid in two $500 million lump sums by the Province of Quebec.

[Smallc]

There is currently two disputes, to be paid in two $500 million lump sums by the Province of Quebec.

If Quebec is willing to do it, that's their problem. That won't stop Boeing from selling things to the Government of Canada. It certainly won't stop Dassault.

[ReeferMadness]

Well, look at it from this angle - when a threat to Canadian airspace is detected, 2 CF-18s are launched, with 2 others launched soon after, or kept in reserve, depending on the distance. If one of each pair was equipped for AAR, with a full fuel load, while still having a small armament, they could go direct to the site without having to stop to refuel.

Again, it sounds handy. Has the airforce deemed it a requirement?

[Smallc]

Again, it sounds handy. Has the airforce deemed it a requirement?

No - the airforce is set on getting the F-35, which has no such capability. In fact, though it has a massive range on internal fuel, the F-35 can currently carry nothing for external fuel.

[Derek 2.0]

Well, look at it from this angle - when a threat to Canadian airspace is detected, 2 CF-18s are launched, with 2 others launched soon after, or kept in reserve, depending on the distance. If one of each pair was equipped for AAR, with a full fuel load, while still having a small armament, they could go direct to the site without having to stop to refuel.

Doesn't work that way, and is why land based air forces don't use buddy-stores......and of course, maritime users of the F-35 will also have use of buddy stores, both external and internal (stealth) systems.

[Derek 2.0]

If Quebec is willing to do it, that's their problem. That won't stop Boeing from selling things to the Government of Canada. It certainly won't stop Dassault.

The Government of Canada will represent Quebec at the WTO......Dassault is partly owned by Airbus, and both the American and French Governments, as said, have much more to loose in regional airline sales then a small fighter order to Canada.