Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[PIK]

Watching trump today with a bunch of CEO's, and he was saying how happy he is that they have decided to drop the price quite a bit on the F-35. Make it more affordable and will sell more in the end.

[DogOnPorch]

It's a slick machine no matter what the peanut gallery thinks...17-1 kill ratio...not shabby at all.

[PIK]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

It's a slick machine no matter what the peanut gallery thinks...17-1 kill ratio...not shabby at all.

But with all the fake news the left wing media has been spouting about it........................

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, PIK said:

But with all the fake news the left wing media has been spouting about it........................

They don't have to fly in it.

There is NO second place in air-to-air combat...just a smoking crater.

[?Impact]

15 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

There is NO second place in air-to-air combat...just a smoking crater.

air-to-air combat? Is that something Canada is heavily involved in?

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

air-to-air combat? Is that something Canada is heavily involved in?

When you buy insurance, do you say: gee...haven't had a house fire while living here?

[DogOnPorch]

...and when I point out cheaper alternatives to nasty evil F-35s...like the A-29/EMB-314 Super Tucano...what's your response?

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

...and when I point out cheaper alternatives to nasty evil F-35s...like the A-29/EMB-314 Super Tucano...what's your response?

Same thing, what are the missions and what is the appropriate tool to support them.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Same thing, what are the missions and what is the appropriate tool to support them.

Super Tucanos are ground attack aircraft capable of operating from dirt roads.

Crews love them.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

air-to-air combat? Is that something Canada is heavily involved in?

It is one of the main requirements of a Fighter / bomber or multi role aircraft are you saying that is not a role Canada needs.........

[Derek 2.0]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

They point out it would be enormously expensive, consume scarce resources since hundreds of new technicians would have to be hired and trained, and is unnecessary.

 

And I fully agree, and have been warning against mixed fleets for years............as they suggested, it it were necessary, we could purchase legacy Hornets from forces retiring theirs....case in point, Kuwait is soon to be retiring their F/A-18C Hornets (Hornets nearly ten years newer than ours) and there is no reason we couldn't purchase the entire fleet and perform any required upgrades for a fraction of the cost of "interim" Super Hornets. 

[Derek 2.0]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

air-to-air combat? Is that something Canada is heavily involved in?

 

Sure is, namely when the Trudeau government has stressed the importance of keeping our NATO and NORAD commitments, Hornets in Eastern Europe. Likewise NORAD, the "threat" of air-to-air combat with Russian fighters, newly rebased in their Arctic, is another potential challenge. 

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

Super Tucanos are ground attack aircraft capable of operating from dirt roads.

Crews love them.

 

And provide a capability that any nation with modern smart weapons can perform with a real fighter..........modern smart weapons made the B-52 and B-1 two of the most capable ground attack aircraft ever.

 

Super Tucanos would be worthless against a foe with semi modern air defenses, meanwhile would suck resources from a force like the RCAF daily, resources better applied to a modern force of fighters. 

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Sure is

When was the last actual air to air combat a Canadian Forces fighter was involved in?

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

When was the last actual air to air combat a Canadian Forces fighter was involved in?

 

The last air to air combat sorties RCAF fighters took part in were the Libyan conflict......before that, operations over the FRY and before that the first Gulf War...

[?Impact]

21 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

The last air to air combat sorties RCAF fighters took part in were...

Were they fired upon by other aircraft, or did they fire on other aircraft during these sorties?

[bush_cheney2004]

27 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

When was the last actual air to air combat a Canadian Forces fighter was involved in?

 

You can't fly CAP missions for NATO if not prepared for air-to-air combat.   What's next...Canadian ships that don't have to float ?

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Were they fired upon by other aircraft, or did they fire on other aircraft during these sorties?

I have no idea, the Libyan air force pretty much ceased to exist after several days of UN sanctioned counter-air patrols and deep interdiction by the Allies. But the enforcement of the Libyan no-fly-zone was the last anti-air combat mission performed by the RCAF.

[Derek 2.0]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

You can't fly CAP missions for NATO if not prepared for air-to-air combat. 

 

Exactly, or NORAD..........but the last combat counter air missions the RCAF actually took part in was the UN sanctioned air policing over Libya.

[DogOnPorch]

53 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

And provide a capability that any nation with modern smart weapons can perform with a real fighter..........modern smart weapons made the B-52 and B-1 two of the most capable ground attack aircraft ever.

 

Super Tucanos would be worthless against a foe with semi modern air defenses, meanwhile would suck resources from a force like the RCAF daily, resources better applied to a modern force of fighters. 

 

I never said the Super Tucano as the only aircraft in service. One F-35 buys what? A dozen? Something like that. Good organic ground support when fighting...oh I dunno...poorly armed Middle Eastern terrorists (what are the chances?).

But, we both know: Canada...the can't do nation.

We have a zillion reasons why we can't do ANYTHING. But, throw money by the billions at sinking ships....that's easy enough.

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[Derek 2.0]

45 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I never said the Super Tucano as the only aircraft in service. One F-35 buys what? A dozen? Something like that. Good organic ground support when fighting...oh I dunno...poorly armed Middle Eastern terrorists (what are the chances?).

 

How many small diameter bombs can one buy, dropped from an F-35, with the price of a dozen Tucanos? The point, despite the Tucano costing a fraction of that of an F-35 to purchase, the annual sustainment costs of both aircraft will still be nearly equal.......airbases will still cost the same, pilots and technicians wages will be parity etc etc etc........both aircraft can drop bombs on poor terrorists, but only one of the types can drop bombs on a nation state with a semi-modern integrated air defense network, perform counter air against modern Chinese and Russian aircraft and chase down supersonic bombers armed with nukes on the approaches to North America.

 

56 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

But, we both know: Canada...the can't do nation.

 

It has nothing to do with that.........turboprop CAS aircraft are a solution looking for a problem in the majority of modern air forces. Its not about can or can't do, but why do?

 

 

[Peter F]

2 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

the "threat" of air-to-air combat with Russian fighters, newly rebased in their Arctic, is another potential challenge. 

only a threat if we intend to attack Russia. Whats the range of these newly rebased fighters in Russian artic airbases?

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Peter F said:

only a threat if we intend to attack Russia. Whats the range of these newly rebased fighters in Russian artic airbases?

 

Range can be extended with in-flight refueling. 

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, Peter F said:

only a threat if we intend to attack Russia. Whats the range of these newly rebased fighters in Russian artic airbases?

 

Or the Russians escort their bombers when they attack us....like they demonstrated a willingness to do with operations over Syria......as to range, like the West, as long as needed with drop tanks and aerial refueling...........our fighters operate in the Arctic, the Russians have fighters based in their Arctic.....advantage Russia.

[Derek 2.0]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Range can be extended with in-flight refueling. 

 Exactly, as the Russians demonstrated with operations over Syria.......sending their bomber force on long range missions from central Russia into Syria was more a message for the West than Middle Eastern terrorists.