Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Smallc]

Do you think we should simply eliminate the entire military, then, on the basis that we can't actually stop Russia if they launch an all-out attack?

BTW, I have, multiple times, stated that we should be working to meet our 2% goal, roughly doubling our current spending on DND in real dollars. At the same time, I have to speak of reality as it exists.

The F-35 is probably (almost definitely once it's actually ready) better than older aircraft. That said, for Canada's needs, it is not necessarily the exclusive or most economically feasible possibility. If the Super Hornet turns out to cost less, and can do roughly the same things (that goes for any other aircraft, but I doubt that they are less expensive, unless we are able to consider the F-16V, which will probably be operated for the next 40 - 50 years), it will serve us well, especially considering the reality that the US will probably be operating them for another 30 years, and that Canada is relatively isolated.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

Of course not - I'm simply saying that whether we respond to Russian aggression with 8 read Super Hornets or 8 ready F-35s will make little difference. It will either be enough of a deterrent, or it won't.

Wrong, fourth generation, non-stealthy aircraft will be at a disadvantage to Russian stealth fighters and the eventual Russian (and Chinese) stealth strategic bombers......which the Russians are developing now.

[Smallc]

the reality, Canada wouldn't need to fend off the Russians absent the Americans

Which means that the difference between 65 F-35s and 65 Super Hornets, for our uses, will be....nothing.

[Smallc]

Wrong, fourth generation, non-stealthy aircraft will be at a disadvantage to Russian stealth fighters and the eventual Russian (and Chinese) stealth strategic bombers......which the Russians are developing now.

We will be at a disadvantage against a larger Russian force anyway. Also, the Super Hornet is the most stealthy 4.5 generation aircraft on the market. As you said, we won't be operating in a vacuum, absent the Americans.

[Derek 2.0]

Which means that the difference between 65 F-35s and 65 Super Hornets, for our uses, will be....nothing.

No, it doesn't.......the later will be worthless and outclassed by potential foes in the decades ahead.

[Derek 2.0]

We will be at a disadvantage against a larger Russian force anyway. Also, the Super Hornet is the most stealthy 4.5 generation aircraft on the market. As you said, we won't be operating in a vacuum, absent the Americans.

Wrong, in the decades ahead, an obsolete aircraft will be more of a burden than a contribution to collective defense.

[Smallc]

No, it doesn't.......the later will be worthless and outclassed by potential foes in the decades ahead.

Which explains US talk of a longer and longer operating timeline. Considering how late the F-35 is in replacing the original hornet, I expect that in about 2045, we'll be wondering why the Super Hornet is still being operated by the USN due to delays in the 6th generation fighter.

[Smallc]

Wrong, in the decades ahead, an obsolete aircraft will be more of a burden than a contribution to collective defense.

We can't all live in a fantasy world.

The F-16, Typhoon, Super Hornet, Gripen, and Rafale will all be around for decades to come. The Russians are building brand new 4.5 generation fighters right now as well. That's reality.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

Which explains US talk of a longer and longer operating timeline. Considering how late the F-35 is in replacing the original hornet, I expect that in about 2045, we'll be wondering why the Super Hornet is still being operated by the USN due to delays in the 6th generation fighter.

And your assumption is not based on reality, as the Super Hornet fleet will hit sometime later this year its fleetwide average 6000 hours mark, the end of its useful life absent a center barrel upgrade (like was done with the legacy Hornet fleet).......simply put, absent the entire Super Hornet fleet being replaced with Super Hornets, the 2030s will be the end of the fleet.............

And what delays are you speaking of one the 6th generation replacement? Already, 30-40% of the USN's Super Hornet fleet is dedicated to aerial refueling missions, and its replacement is slated to enter service early next decade.............you're dreaming if you think the Super Hornets/Growlers will last beyond the 2030s......

[cybercoma]

Aren't they one and the same?

All dogs are animals. Does that mean all animals are dogs?

[Derek 2.0]

We can't all live in a fantasy world.

The F-16, Typhoon, Super Hornet, Gripen, and Rafale will all be around for decades to come. The Russians are building brand new 4.5 generation fighters right now as well. That's reality.

You're the one in the fantasy world, the Russians and Chinese (and Europeans) are developing their own 5th generation, stealth aircraft........

Edited February 27, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

All dogs are animals. Does that mean all animals are dogs?

That's subjective to its own definition and intent when applied to the spoken to subject.

[cybercoma]

That's subjective to its own definition and intent when applied to the spoken to subject.

Really?

[Smallc]

You're the one in the fantasy world, the Russians and Chinese (and Europeans) are developing their own 5th generation, stealth aircraft........

To be operated along side older aircraft, for decades to come.

[Smallc]

And your assumption is not based on reality, as the Super Hornet fleet will hit sometime later this year its fleetwide average 6000 hours mark, the end of its useful life absent a center barrel upgrade (like was done with the legacy Hornet fleet)

Which will happen. After all, how many aircraft projects of late (or ever) have happened on time and on budget?

The Rafale?

The Typhoon?

The F-22?

The Super Hornet?

The F-35?

The 787?

The C Series?

The A-380?

The A-350?

The A-400M?

The CH-148?

The NH-90?

None of those. They all were and are behind schedule, many of them by 5 years to a decade. The Super Hornet will see 2040 and beyond.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Smallc

[On Guard for Thee]

Again, the biggest problem(s) with the F 35 is its attempt to be all things to all people, trying to replace at once, F18 carrier fighters, A10 tank busters, the F16, even the AV8 Harriers, and as well fill the gaps in the limited number of F 22's. What they've ended up with a machine that is slower, has less maneuverable, less range, less rate of climb, all the while carrying less armament than the specialty a/c it is meant to replace. Nice try though.

[bush_cheney2004]

Which explains US talk of a longer and longer operating timeline. Considering how late the F-35 is in replacing the original hornet, I expect that in about 2045, we'll be wondering why the Super Hornet is still being operated by the USN due to delays in the 6th generation fighter.

All of which has nothing to do with Canada's far more delayed procurement of a single replacement strike fighter. The U.S. has developed and procured two generations of aircraft since CF-188's entered service, and is developing newer aircraft as well (F/A-XX and UCAV).

[Smallc]

It does bring several things forward though; specifically in the areas of radar cross section mitigation and and situational awareness. Still, another aircraft will serve our needs just as well. If it can do it for less, great.

[Smallc]

All of which has nothing to do with Canada's far more delayed procurement of a single replacement strike fighter.

It has everything to do with talk of an orphan fleet. Knowing that other aircraft will still be in use well into the future changes the dynamic.

[bush_cheney2004]

It does bring several things forward though; specifically in the areas of radar cross section mitigation and and situational awareness. Still, another aircraft will serve our needs just as well. If it can do it for less, great.

Doesn't seem to matter....it is obvious that Canada does not really want to spend the money on ANY aircraft.

Just shut it all down and save BILLIONS for the ships that also never seem to get built.

[Smallc]

Doesn't seem to matter....it is obvious that Canada does not really want to spend the money on ANY aircraft.

I wouldn't agree with that per say. Canadians don't really care all that much about defence though - you're right about that.

Just shut it all down and save BILLIONS for the ships that also never seem to get built.

The Liberals have already made some very important moves to fix up the procurement mess left by the Conservatives in shipbuilding.

[bush_cheney2004]

It has everything to do with talk of an orphan fleet. Knowing that other aircraft will still be in use well into the future changes the dynamic.

F-4 Phantoms are also still in service, and they have TWO ENGINES ! Buy some of those....really cheap.

[Smallc]

F-4 Phantoms are also still in service, and they have TWO ENGINES !

They're not still in production.

[bush_cheney2004]

They're not still in production.

Neither are F-22 Raptors....so there goes that logic.

[Smallc]

Neither are F-22 Raptors....so there goes that logic.

When did I say we should buy the F-22? Your logic should better follow the discussion.