Jump to content

Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?


Hoser360

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

Ah let's wait until we see what an open competition reveals. I suspect the F 35 is a lot of money for a SE air frame that isn't really stealthy.

There is not going to be a competition , the liberals have already decided to buy 18 super hornets.....why would they run a competition because it is in the rules.....what rules we don't need no stinking rules.......The liberals don't want a competition because they might be forced to lie to liberal voters once again....Remember anything but the F-35.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

There is not going to be a competition , the liberals have already decided to buy 18 super hornets.....why would they run a competition because it is in the rules.....what rules we don't need no stinking rules.......The liberals don't want a competition because they might be forced to lie to liberal voters once again....Remember anything but the F-35.....

18 F 18's are to fill a gap left by Harper. The competition for full replacement is forthcoming

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Omni said:

18 F 18's are to fill a gap left by Harper. The competition for full replacement is forthcoming

DId they annouce that , do you have a source, because no one else knows anything.....just like this purchase.....nothing is forth coming....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya well you believe what you want to....i error on the side of truth and so far the liberals have piled it on so high i can't see anything....DND , the General of the air force has said on several occasions, our CF-18 are good to 2025 and beyond, there is no capability gap, meaning we are providing all the aircraft for all our missions.....Trudeau during a question period in the house said DND has told him there is a capability gap.....either Gen Vance told him, or someone else maybe it's the Admiral, what we do know is it was not the air force general.........who know s at this point ....Then there is the whole purchase with out a competition, it's only around 2.4 bil the latest truck project was only worth 900 mil and it had to have a competition.....but for some liberal reason this one gets a pass......it is all lies.... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Ya well you believe what you want to....i error on the side of truth and so far the liberals have piled it on so high i can't see anything....DND , the General of the air force has said on several occasions, our CF-18 are good to 2025 and beyond, there is no capability gap, meaning we are providing all the aircraft for all our missions.....Trudeau during a question period in the house said DND has told him there is a capability gap.....either Gen Vance told him, or someone else maybe it's the Admiral, what we do know is it was not the air force general.........who know s at this point ....Then there is the whole purchase with out a competition, it's only around 2.4 bil the latest truck project was only worth 900 mil and it had to have a competition.....but for some liberal reason this one gets a pass......it is all lies.... 

You asked for a cite, I gave you one. You believe whatever you want to as well. When it comes to the competition though, Lock Mart will hopefully have to provide some actual numbers. So far it's all smoke and mirrors. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek you are fun. You were given a comparison of an older Gripen D to an F35 and Super H and uh know you want the latest Gripen E comparison. Now you act as if the Gripen E is untested  so you don't have to comment on it and do I detect  you think there is something sinister about the delay in its being tested?

Uh sorry no....

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-11-30/saab-postpones-gripen-e-first-flight-good-reason

Yah I know how when info doesn't agree with you, poof you ignore it but try these aren't on the blog you now arbitrarily censor:

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/evolution-of-the-fittest-saab-rolls-out-the-gripen-e/

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34292:saab-successfully-completes-flight-test-with-irst-for-gripen-e&catid=35:Aerospace

Interesting.

The older and newer Gripens match with the F35 and Super H and even Rafale.

Nothing in the Gripen E makes it different than the Gripen D it simply adds to it with speed and newer software.

But hey it hasn't flown yet so let's actually ignore it while the F35 does fly with repeated faults and defects as if that makes it a better jet. Lol.

Right Derek. You won't respond to  the blog. Of course not, you have nothing to counter it other than to say the Gripen D which matched well is being replaced by the Gripen E which has not been tested yet. Rubbish:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newssaab-launches-first-gripen-e-aircraft-4896511

http://defaiya.com/news/International News/Europe/2014/04/08/saab-completes-flight-test-with-irst-for-gripen-e

Someone please tell Derek that the F35 was conceived 25 phacking years ago, 25! In 25 years it still has not fixed its defects. 25 years! 25 years  to develop  a friggin craft with no actual definitive cost per jet even finalized while the Gripen E has in fact been tested and its complete version will be tested this March.

Let's be very specific and not avoid the facts Derek:

1-its already too expensive and its price continues to soar as the delays in production continue on and on;

2-the Gripen E is most certainly a viable option;

3-South Korea,Turkey, Holland are all second guessing the F35;

4-Turkey is looking at a minimum 50 BILLION as the preliminary price quoted on purchasing and building 200 F35's and buying 100 more from the US;

5-he price of the F35 is continuing to rise as we speak-no one lue how much it will actually cost...none of us do..

6.the pilots testing the F35 have warned its still not ready to fly: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22530/pentagon-tester-f-35-combat-testing-delays/

7. the amount of defects with the F35 grows and is not diminishing: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222380-the-pentagons-official-f-35-bug-list-is-terrifying;

and here is the most recent report on its defects: https://www.rt.com/usa/373891-f35-report-flaws-delays/

8.do NOT assume the F35 being purchased by Canada is the same as the one Israel will have IF  it sticks with this jet: https://www.wired.com/2016/05/israel-can-customize-americas-f-35-least-now/

9.Don't even assume by the time this is done the IAF will continue on with the F35....because....back in November of 2014 the Israeli cabinet rejected the purchase of an additional 31 F35's and reduced to 13-think about that-Israel is the no.1 tester and developer of the craft and it reduced its order after committing its entire future to this craft? Never before in the history of the State of Israel has its ministerial committee in charge of defense spending reversed a previously approved air force request. Never. It didn't just over-ride the Air Force, but former government and the Israeli National Security Council. T hat means all of them had to agree.  Israel has 19 F35's on order at about 2.74 billion. Israel was supposed to purchase a total of 50. Israel quite simply can't handle the expense and keep in mind the US offered 2.4 BILLION in credit. As it is Israel was relying on 3.1 billion in military aid from the US which would be used to purchase these craft. That aid by the way is paid back by Israel with interest or in collateral deals exchanging back new improvements to the craft back to Lockhead which then in turn sells that new technology. Bottom line, Israel can't afford the soaring costs. Also something very strange happened. The Minister of Intelligence Yuval Steinitz who avoids the public and media made this public statement about the purchase of the F35: "We are not rubber stamps for the [ministry of defense] and air force."

That is because in Israel there is wide spread belief the Air Force and Ministry of Defence are being pressured by the US areonautics industry and are not actng in the be interests of what Israel actually needs. Steinitz is on record at five different meetings with  the panel on defense procurement dealing with the F35, openly questioning its effectiveness and  referring to articles from  Aviation Week from 2003 and 2008.

Those articles contained leaks from guess who. a "Senior Israeli official," a euphemism for an Israeli Air Force General not allowed to speak out saying:

"For maintaining stealthiness, this aircraft has compromised maneuverability, shorter operational range and significantly less payload capability," a senior Israeli official told Aviation Week. "We shouldn’t be buying so many of them when it is unclear whether the stealth is effective, or there is a countermeasure that would        negate it. There are vast gaps in performance between the F-35 and fourth-generation fighters."

1o. Egypt and Saudi Arabia refuse to bu the F35. Egypt has gone with the Rafale, the Saudis with an F16. For them to do that you et someone in Israel told them to pass on the F35. Jordan's air force which is traditionally run by Britain's, is non committal on the F35 because the British are not exactly jumping for joy over its soaring price and like Australia and Canada are now examining  the European fighters or Super H as aternatives.

In the interim and its not so crazy, someone may look at the Chinese fighter and ask if its a better cheaper alternative as well. Stranger things have happened. Right now China won't sell the craft but it might if it thinks it can make good money.

I personally would not touch the Chinese version but some countries might such as Pakistan.

India looks like its settling on the Rafale not the F35. I suspect Morrocco is leaning to the Rafale.

The only reason Israel has not split from the F35 consortium is because it can't. Its completely captive of it like Canada. Israel gutted its own air industry like Canada did. Israel ditched its Kfir jet like Canada did its Arrow in favour of American manufacturers. Now its haunting them both. Its never good to allow your independence to be given up even to your allies.

 

Edited by Rue
  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Omni said:

I don't think there is anything illegal about a government buying equipment for its armed forces. Transparent? not sure but the PBO has it on their agenda. But so far nothing coming close to contempt.

Contempt is simply a matter of who has the seats in parliament. If the Liberals were in a minority I'm quite sure there'd be contempt findings now. In any event, the demands for information was nothing more than political games, and I don't care much about political games.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Contempt is simply a matter of who has the seats in parliament. If the Liberals were in a minority I'm quite sure there'd be contempt findings now. In any event, the demands for information was nothing more than political games, and I don't care much about political games.

not games, it`s called law. Harper was the first to break that one.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Um, who was in power the previous 10 years.

Um, who fought against the F-35, tooth and nail... after initiating the deal in the first place?

Not to mention there is no gap. The RCAF has already said as much. Just another example of dishonesty from the Liberals.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Argus said:

Um, who fought against the F-35, tooth and nail... after initiating the deal in the first place?

Not to mention there is no gap. The RCAF has already said as much. Just another example of dishonesty from the Liberals.

The RCAF says the current f 18`s can  be kept flying into the future, it's just that they can`t keep enough airworthy on any given day to meet the requirements. We need some new planes and the super Hornet is the best choice so might as well go for it. We need 2 engines more than we need doubtful stealth.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Omni said:

The RCAF says the current f 18`s can  be kept flying into the future, it's just that they can`t keep enough airworthy on any given day to meet the requirements. We need some new planes and the super Hornet is the best choice so might as well go for it. We need 2 engines more than we need doubtful stealth.

What is with you Liberals, and your reading comprehension.....The General of the Airforce Has stated there are "NO" Capability gaps, that our F-18 fleet is capable to fly past 2025.....How does that translate into our planes are having problems with serviceability, now i know alot of things, our Airforce are magicians when it comes down to fixing planes, and keeping them flying......the only thing that could slow down the process is parts availability.....that's a funding problem....perhaps the liberals can produce serviceability stats on our F-18's....but that's just going to prove the liberals are lying again.......Seems to me everything they touch turns to shit lately.....

Now in the back ground the Liberal government is changing all our numbers to all our commitments....Can they do that, They can change any number they want , or rather yet they can tell you the gullible anything they want....have you heard of Canada increasing it's commitments any where......NO.....because that would be news worthy......so they are changing internal documents only....adding to the numbers to create a scape goat, a cover story for this stunt here........They have also placed all pers involved with the purchase of these 18 F-18 super hornets with a gag order, for life,they can't talk about costing, details, even the Cons reported all purchases, and followed the rules,  .....that sound like a clear and transparent thing to do.....

The best choice.....How would you or the rest of the liberal Cabinet know what is the best Aircraft Available, Was there a competition "NO", Is there an experts in the liberal cabinet, "NO".....Have they used any of the info or testing results submitted by DND ..."NO"....So how does the super hornet come up the winner....Nobody knows.....everyone else is asking WTF except the liberals.....the 2 engine thing.....already been debated and debunked.....welcome to 2017 my friend.....tell me how the F-16 can patrol northern europe for 25 years now.....2 engines is another liberal myth..... 

SO lets run though it again , because you liberals are a little slow.......Airforce general says there is NO capability gap.....Our jets will last to 2025 and beyond.....liberals order gag order to cover up purchase of 18 CF-18 Super Hornets, they don't release any info on the project, to prevent debate......and confusion....Who is lying.....can you point them out for the rest of the forum......It's that french guy over there your honor.....that guy called trudeau...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

What is with you Liberals, and your reading comprehension.....The General of the Airforce Has stated there are "NO" Capability gaps, that our F-18 fleet is capable to fly past 2025

In testimony before the Senate Defence Committee on November 28th, 2016, Lt. General Mike Hood said: "The government has announced a policy whereby the Royal Canadian Air Force is required to be able to simultaneously meet both our NORAD and our NATO commitments. I am at present unable to do that with the present CF-18 fleet. There aren't enough aircraft to deliver those commitments simultaneously". No reading comprehension problem here. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

In testimony before the Senate Defence Committee on November 28th, 2016, Lt. General Mike Hood said: "The government has announced a policy whereby the Royal Canadian Air Force is required to be able to simultaneously meet both our NORAD and our NATO commitments. I am at present unable to do that with the present CF-18 fleet. There aren't enough aircraft to deliver those commitments simultaneously". No reading comprehension problem here. 

Don't need reading comprehension when you a liberal you just write new policies to back up your statement.....

Well when your the boss, you can change what numbers can or will not be reported.....That is what has happened here....DND has been reporting the old way for over 25 years....and now it has changed to have a good reflection on this liberal matter....Nice move Liberals, crafty, when in doubt change the rules.....

The liberals changed it on purpose, so they can pursue this interim contract...However there are more than just this one point, that is a point of contention for the liberals. the fact that this fleet will last past 2025,........ they totally ignored they're subject matter experts that the cons hired to look into the last attempt to purchase F-35........, that operating 2 different fleets of aircraft is not good business, and is waste of tax payers money, plus it also takes more aircraft to meet requirements when operating 2 separate fleets....Gagging the entire interim Super Hornets project staff......Not releasing anything about the purchase to the public.....not to mention who did they consult on the purchase of the Super Hornet.....was it the Airforce, or did they go back to the same dept the cons hired to look into the original contract for the F-35....Who is telling the tax payers this is the best interim aircraft.....?

 

 

Edited by Army Guy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look at what's out there.

1-The F22 Raptor-everyone agrees its the best fighter jet. The US won't sell them and besides they would cost 450 million per jet to build

2-tie between Eurofighter Typhoon, Dasault Rafale, but the latter has no stealth but its a great get-both way too expensive for Canada

4--take your pick of the Russian jets, the Sukhoi T-50 Pak FA, Sukhoi Su-35 (which is supposed to counter the F-35).

5-The Superhornet F/A 18E/F

6-The MIG 35 I think is over-rated and not better than the F-15 Eagle but real close so I would put at no.4 with the F15 with the F16 Viper just a bit behind those two.

7- the JAS 39 Gripen

8- Chengdu J-10

No one is certain about the Shenyang J-31 Chinese stealth fighter. It could be right up there with the Russian T-50 Pak FA or even in category 2-not much is known. All that is known is the pilots are not able to use all its software at this time. The J-31 and Pak FA appear to be attempts to compete with the F22 while the Su-35 is supposed to match the F35 but Chinese and Russian technology tends to rely heavily on stolen intelligence which is often riddled with disinformation so we have to wait for more results on these craft.

Some people claim the Typhoon is over-rated and a lemon like the F-35.

the Rafale is not stealth and is being given good reviews as a sort up advanced F15 which everyone loves.

Now with all the above where does the F35 Lightening ll sit? Well just on paper with no defects at no.2 just ahead of the Euro fighters.

In reality with all its defects, nowhere.

Now take a look at the SuperH. Its not a bad craft for the next 15 years as a temporary stop gap to fill Norad and Nato missions but it will slip as the years go by and the other craft I have listed get tested and start flying and get their kinks out. The Gripen which I put at 7 could conceivably once its tested be as good a fighter as the other Euro jets at a much cheaper price. It will never be an F22, probably not in the same league as the T-50 or China's J-31 or Typhoon but comparable to the Rafale and and Typhoon at a much much better cost.

For what Canada needs we don't need and have never needed a stealth craft. We don't even need an F16 or F15. The F18 was a good choice. A superhornet is a good stop gap but for bang for the money its the Gripen or long term if not the Gripen then you have to look at the Rafale assuming we won't buy Chinese or Russian ever.

The fact is we do not need a 5th generation state of the art stealth fighter. We need a quick, light interceptor that doesn't need refueling or high maintance like the F35.

The F35 is fine if you believe after 25 years suddenly the defects will magically disappear. Then what. What the phack is Canada doing with a jet that is not as good an interceptpr as a Gripen or SuperH or Rafale? Its whole point is to be a low ground bomber and attack craft.

We don't need that. We need an interceptor to escort Russian jets out of our airspace. If the Russians came in with Miug35's T50 Paks  or Su35's, the US won't wait it will send in Raptors, the F35's if we had them would be shunted to escort and back up.

The whole thing is nuts.

The IAF guys I know hate the F35 and say the F15 or F16 is better and the real fighter is the F22 no one can have.

If the Chinese are smart they will sell their J-31's not hide them realizing they can with-hold their own custom software and just sell the shell.

You want outside the box. Canada should buy the damn J-31 and put its own software in.  That would shock the hell out of everyone.

All that said Canada like Brazil and Argentina which is to buy Gripens from Brazil doesn't need a killer fighter. It needs an interceptor. We are not a superpower.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Don't need reading comprehension when you a liberal you just write new policies to back up your statement.....

That was clearly articulated in the Liberal platform for the 2015 election:

We will immediately begin an open and transparent review process of existing defence capabilities, with the goal of delivering a more effective, better-equipped military.

  • The Canada First Defence Strategy, launched by Stephen Harper in 2008, is underfunded and out of date. We will review current programs and capabilities, and lay out a realistic plan to strengthen Canada’s Armed Forces.
  • We will develop the Canadian Armed Forces into an agile, responsive, and well- equipped military force that can effectively defend Canada and North America; provide support during natural disasters, humanitarian support missions, and peace operations; and offer international deterrence and combat capability.
  • We will continue to work with the United States to defend North America under NORAD, and contribute to regional security within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  • We will ensure that equipment is acquired faster, and with vigorous Parliamentary oversight.
  • We will put a renewed focus on surveillance and control of Canadian territory and approaches, particularly our Arctic regions, and will increase the size of the Canadian Rangers.

Last spring they launched a major review on Canada's defence policy. It was supposed to report to Cabinet by the end of 2016, and be released to the public early this year. I haven't seen the actual document released, so I am not sure  what 'early' means. I have however highlighted a bullet point you can attack them on.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

In testimony before the Senate Defence Committee on November 28th, 2016, Lt. General Mike Hood said: "The government has announced a policy whereby the Royal Canadian Air Force is required to be able to simultaneously meet both our NORAD and our NATO commitments. I am at present unable to do that with the present CF-18 fleet. There aren't enough aircraft to deliver those commitments simultaneously". No reading comprehension problem here. 

 

As noted by Army Guy (and General Hood), the numbers of aircraft only became an issue once the Liberals found a solution (after an extensive lobbying effort by Boeing) looking for a problem........

 

 

20 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

We will ensure that equipment is acquired faster, and with vigorous Parliamentary oversight.

 

On this subject, the realization that the majority of the information on a planned Super Hornet purchase, by this government, has been leaked to the press should be most discomforting........and very ironic.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ?Impact said:

That was clearly articulated in the Liberal platform for the 2015 election:

We will immediately begin an open and transparent review process of existing defence capabilities, with the goal of delivering a more effective, better-equipped military.

  • The Canada First Defence Strategy, launched by Stephen Harper in 2008, is underfunded and out of date. We will review current programs and capabilities, and lay out a realistic plan to strengthen Canada’s Armed Forces.
  • We will develop the Canadian Armed Forces into an agile, responsive, and well- equipped military force that can effectively defend Canada and North America; provide support during natural disasters, humanitarian support missions, and peace operations; and offer international deterrence and combat capability.
  • We will continue to work with the United States to defend North America under NORAD, and contribute to regional security within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  • We will ensure that equipment is acquired faster, and with vigorous Parliamentary oversight.
  • We will put a renewed focus on surveillance and control of Canadian territory and approaches, particularly our Arctic regions, and will increase the size of the Canadian Rangers.

Last spring they launched a major review on Canada's defence policy. It was supposed to report to Cabinet by the end of 2016, and be released to the public early this year. I haven't seen the actual document released, so I am not sure  what 'early' means. I have however highlighted a bullet point you can attack them on.

What that they were going to lie, do what ever it takes to push this agenda through, to GAG all those involved in the project for LIFE, to deny the public any info on the project, you know like costing out to 42 years as the law states, The same law that the Cons were forced to use because it jacked up all the costs.....the one that almost seen the Cons held in content.....To make a major purchase with out a competition of any kind,....... to reorg how DND has reported and done business for the last 25 years,......to purchase a plane that DND has not been consulted on.....to force DND to fly 2 fleets of fighters when it can barely afford to fly one........then lie to DND and promise them it will be properly funded....knowing full well funding is done yearly, and DND is the first target when there is a shortfall.......To disregard all the info and data that DND has gathered in this race to no where, is a slap in the face to all that worked so hard to gather it.....only to have some liberal CIVILIAN (school Teacher) pick the next aircraft for the forces based on what info.....Not DND advice.....But this is a long standing issue with most governments, Cons included they think they know what is best for our defence.....another reason our forces are in the state they are in today......

 "open and transparent review process of existing defence capabilities"....this is a joke, what they did was take these matters to the streets of Canada, because tax payers know more than those in charge of the military, on how to defend our nation, how to equip our nation, how to run the military.....What in the frig do we need an NDHQ for......if the people and a bunch of liberals are going to run the show.......funny how the only thing that went to the streets is the question about the military......have we seen the same process on health care, education, provincial transfers, provincial/ federal  infra structure ? i have not seen anything.....Not everything that is good for our nation, is going to popular for it...I wonder if DND has had it's voice heard in this circus, and where does that info place on their radar....

I wonder if the Air force has been given priority access to recruitment so it can start training all those pilots and techs that keep all these 18 Super hornets flying......it's not like they have extra guys sitting around for times like this....not to mention an increase in budget, to pay for all of this....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2017‎-‎02‎-‎07 at 4:55 PM, Omni said:

The RCAF says the current f 18`s can  be kept flying into the future, it's just that they can`t keep enough airworthy on any given day to meet the requirements. We need some new planes and the super Hornet is the best choice so might as well go for it. We need 2 engines more than we need doubtful stealth.

Actually we don't need two engines. That's a myth that comes from the old Widowmaker Voodoo fighter  that flamed out all the time and the belief 2 engines are safer than one which is not actually true:

Here take a look:

https://defenseissues.net/2014/08/09/single-vs-twin-engined-fighters/

http://www.flyingmag.com/wrong-worry-twins-versus-singles

https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/pic-archive/flight-training-ratings-and-proficiency/single-vs-twin

To summarize the above with a single engine fighter your cost of fuel and oil per flight (operational costs) is lower. Its also less engione to fix  or overhaul since the design is simpler, i.e., ,the fuel, vaccum and electric systems are smaller and simpler. Obviously you have only one engine to rehaul


Now what comes with the cost of two engines, Well everything from fuel, to maintenance to rehaul tot he amount of parts that need to be fixed. Its also a larger craft so its short take off and landing isn't there which is what we need in Canadat The benefits of the SuperH v.s. the F35  can be debated but to be fair the 1 v.  2 engine issue isn't the major issue.  Boeing the SuperH makers  are promising it the most jobs on the ground in Canada and as I said this is about who gives you the most jobs in Canada no what is the best fighter (whether that be 2 or one engine), i.e.,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-35-at-half-the-price-1.1320636

The SuperH at this point is being flown by the US Navy and Australian Air Force so its a known quantity unlike the F35 or Gripen E and its about 55 mil to the F35 which as of today on paper will cost 110 mil (and going up by the sec.).

That said a Gripen E with one engine is far more economical for Canada than a Super H but I doubt it will cause as much employment spin off on the ground in Canada although the Swedes say it could. The other thing is if you reject the F35 it could be argued  going with another Yank product albeit a competitor cushions American anger and economic retaliation although I argue that could be offset by subsequent  navy purchases although some argue the same people making the jets are tied to the same people who could give us discounts on naval equipment later on. So that all has to be cost analyzed and you and I won't get to see that analysis but you can bet the best aircraft is not the ultimate decision maker, which manufacturer creates the most jobs in Canada is.

Interestingly the US is talking about taking its existing one engine F16's and extending them to 2050 with upgrades, so if a single jet craft was so dangerous the Yanks never would have made the F16. Now the F15 is probably a better craft than the F16 and has 2 engines but for more reasons than just that.

In fact the Super H is a safe conservative choice if you don't trust the F35 and you question the Gripen E for not having more flying info at this time because the only alternativeis getting updated F16's or F15's which makes no more sense than the updated F18. The F18 SuperH is a no brainer. Its a low risk stop gap. The other choice is to look at the Rafale because the Eurofighter (Typhoon) is just too costly. The Rafale is a great jet but it has no stealth. I argue we need no stealth and the difference between the Rafale and SuperH is not that great and there is an argument to be made the SuperH is as good if not better. So unless you go with new generation Russian or Chinese craft which will never happen since Canada is a NATO member and neither China or Russia would ever for that reason share its technology,  it leaves you with the Gripen, SuperH, waiting on the F35 or buying the Rafale. Once the Gripen E goes through major flight tests with all its hardware in March or April there will be a low cost alternative to both the SuperH and F35 to look at.

I think Canada has already decided to commit to the SuperH. I think it should stick with 35 and stop and let the rest be Gripen E's or Rafales and pass on the F35 which to start with was all in one get with features Canada does not need and was only buying on the premises they would be getting them tossed in at bargain prices.

You don't when you are a middle power buy stealth fighters. Its a waste of money. We have no need of it, None. We want detectable interceptors-We want our interceptors viisible. The major mission of interception does not require stealth. The idea Canada is going to be involved in stealth missions is nonsense. In todays stealth missions you can use silent helicopters and drones two things Canada does not need either. 

We are not a superpower. We need to stop pretending we are. We need to get a  cost effective air fighter because our immediate priority is creating a navy. We have no ships. We literally have some dinghies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rue said:

Actually we don't need two engines.

Actually there isn't much fuel savings having one engine when the F 35 uses about 2000 kg more fuel to go the same distance as the Super-hornet. There may be some savings in overhaul costs with one engine, if you can get the same TBO out of that one engine but the F 35 burns so hot I would tend to think it may be subjected to unscheduled maintenance. And of course if you do lose that one engine you lose the whole plane. From what I know from actual pilots, they like lots of engines. Especially if they are over the ocean or the freezing cold arctic. .  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, real life evaluation continues at sea. Both on America class LHAs and Nimitz Class CVNs.

From earlier in February...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aST_ljoH_qE

About half the size of an F-18.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rue said:

That's a myth that comes from the old Widowmaker Voodoo fighter  that flamed out all the time and the belief 2 engines are safer than one which is not actually true:

 

Close, the Starfighter not the Voodoo..........as to the Hornet selection, the only reason we went with its two engines vice the F-16s one, was that the earlier versions of the cheaper F-16 did not have a radar capable of guiding Sparrow medium range missiles......which were a requirement for NORAD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...