Well right. I mean you, and its your opinion, do not feel that there is a threat. You want to maintain a standing army... but not provide them with air cover?
Tories To Waste Billons On New Fighter Jets
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
It probably will be the B model.
Unless I read the following sentence wrong, the F-35 project mean jobs.
.
In 1997, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien signed a memorandum of understanding with Lockheed Martin that committed Canada to building more than 3,000 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets jointly with the U.S. and several other countries.
Read more: CBC News - Politics - $9B F-35 jets 'the best deal': Harper
.
In 1997, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien signed a memorandum of understanding with Lockheed Martin that committed Canada to building more than 3,000 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets jointly with the U.S. and several other countries.
Read more: CBC News - Politics - $9B F-35 jets 'the best deal': Harper
You would use these new planes to make sure that Canada has the best aircraft in the world to protect its interests and those of its pilots.
You simply can not predict the future. On Sept. 10, 2001, it was impossible to predict that Canada would be involved in a hands-on ground war withing a few months.............
And the lead time to purchase hi-tech equipment is simply too long....it is make your best guess now. And there is nothing more expensive than an air superiority fighter that is less effective than your enemies'.
There's no guarentee that the F-35 isn't going to be a hangar queen, it's pretty bleeding edge technology.
With it's huge area and highly variable climate Canada might have done much better looking elsewhere for a next generation A/F combat aircraft. The Swedes have been making some impressive aircraft for decades and there are other choices as well.
With it's huge area and highly variable climate Canada might have done much better looking elsewhere for a next generation A/F combat aircraft. The Swedes have been making some impressive aircraft for decades and there are other choices as well.
Well since Canadians had a hand in the development I think they did some research on it. The F-35 is the best of its class up to this point as far as an FA. The F-22 is right behind albeit it is strictly of the interceptor class.
Stealth is nice, but for many missions it's overkill, are we willing to pay about $100? million per fighter for F-35s when we could buy something like a JAS Gripen that's designed for cold weather and multi-role missions. I think the Gripen NG is about 2/3s the cost of the F-35 and you can fly if off roads and turn it around for missions in a matter of minutes. A complex fighter like the F-35 requires extensive support, the US is not known for building simple cost-effective aircraft, the F-16 being one of the few exceptions and it took something of a quiet revolt in the USAF to get that built.
Not being seen by the enemy in combat is... overkill?
Whatever! Enjoy
I guess the Yanks and Canadians that designed the F-35 forgot to add the cold weather capability. How did they miss that?
Thats the spirit! Just like buying up the surplus Danish Leopard Tanks that were sitting around in warehouses since the 80's. Nothing but the best for your troops!
Oh brother.
So you don't think you're up to the task?
Hey... buy yourself some F-4U Corsairs. You'll save yourself a bundle and they'll be easier to maintain.
I case you haven't noticed we're running a massive deficit, I guess if your only priority is having the biggest stick on the block and screw the future of the nation then spend the extra 30 or 40 million per plane for that extra 10-20% percent capability. Like I said stealth is overkill for most missions, for local defence fighters like the Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon are more than capable. Much of stealth technology is about giving an offensive edge like if you want to fly over a heavily defended city and bomb the crap out of high value targets.
No but the(us) Yanks love their gadgets and most modern fighters produced by the US are overweight and unneccessarily complex. They look really good on paper but can be a pain in the ass operationally.
It beat the hell out of 1970s era Leopards, the Leopard 2 is probably one of the most survivable tanks in service today. That's one purchase the conservatives did get right.
Yah, it's crazy, buying a light weight low cost fighter with STOL capability that can fly off any reasonably flat straight road surface and be refueled, ammoed in back in the air in minutes when you can spend that extra 30-40 million per plane on a fighter with complex thrust vectoring nozzles, outlet doors and a separate vertical takeoff system(F-35B) what can go wrong with all that? The Russians have a saying, the best is the enemy of good enough, in this case they may be right.
I'm sure they'll find a way to shoe-horn the F-35 into some role like they've been doing with every aircraft designed from the start. A plane that looks good on paper doesn't neccessarily live up to billing in practice. Just look at the B-1 bomber, they had so many problems they spent most of their lifespan in hangars being serviced and were retired before the plane they were supposed to replace the B-52. Like I said looking impressive on paper is not the same thing as performing in the real world and there is simply more to go wrong with the F-35.
For it's time the F-4U was a great plane and it even survived long into the jet age when most prop planes were long retired. Spending huge amounts for the extra 20% capability is hard to justify when we're back to record deficit spending under another big blue machine. Same with the way the helicopters were purchased, who's in charge anyway, the taxpayers seem to be totally out of the loop when it comes to buying military hardware right now, are we living in a fascist state or something?
The future of the nation is not in jeopardy if you buy the best aircraft available. Just the opposite.
Stealth tech is exactly what it says. So if you think being able to be lit up in a defensive posture is a good thing well what can I say?
Their records speak for themselves. Overweight? Says who? How is weight a factor these days?
The Japanese Zero was very light weight... and got ripped apart by the heavier opponents.
Yes and I guess it bet the hell out of the M4 Sherman if you want to go that route. They were hand me downs.
Do you have any idea about logistics?
I assure you, you are not going to be able to recieve, service, fuel, and rearm in minutes on the side of a road. BTW...the F-35 is VSTOL capable.
Say whaaaaat?
They said the same thing about the F-18. It is one of the best aircraft out there.
Well buy a fleet of Sabres then. They are cheap, durable.
Facist? Embellishing a little?
Stealth aircraft give you one advantage that should be obvious to all. That is you will be able to see and kill almost any enemy fighter in the world and they would have no idea what is happening till they are falling out of the sky. The F-18 is a good aircraft, but wouldn't stand a chance up against the F-35 (any variant). When the F-35 becomes visible to your radar, you are already targeted then it disappears and is gone.
Spad was a great plane.
Spad was a great plane.
Threatened by who, it's a long haul for a fighter to fly over from Russia or China and those are the only credible threats to our sovereignty and in both cases they're going to come up against USAF forces in stealth fighters first probably. Just look at the US for the effects of massive deficit spending on a nation, do we really want to go down that road? It's got the strongest military in the world and it's falling apart from the inside, unemployment in California is over 20% when you look at those who've simply stopped looking for work and a disappearing high-tech base, Silicon Valley has been especially hard hit. Spending more on the military means spending less on other things or borrowing more money from our children.
Stealth is a relative term, the F-35 is a less capable stealth platform than the F-22 and still very expensive. And you need to look at the opposition you'll be facing, who is building stealth in the same class the US has been for the last three decades, the Russians are still way behind in defence spending and while China is catching up rapidly it still bases much of it's technology on older Russian systems.
They've hardly been lightweight, look at the F-4 Phantom nicknamed the Rhino or Brick and the hard time it had with lightweight Soviet fighters over Vietnam or one of it's major replacements the F-15, it's pilots liked to call it the Flying Tennis Court or Starship due to it's huge size for a fighter and complexity. Weight is a factor in maneovering and the larger an aircraft is usually the bigger it's RCS. It also requires more fuel to operate and quite often more extensive facilities to base.
Not in the first year of the war, it outclassed every Allied fighter until the F-4U and F6Fs began to show up. The Japanese simply didn't have the industrial base to produce a replacement fast enough to keep up with the US.
With it's very thick spaced armor the Leopard 2 is still very good tank, the main challenge is to upgrade the electronics and if needed the weapons package, and armor something Canada did with the Leopard 1cs for years.
Yup
The Swedes do it very well, why can't we?
Yes I know the F-35B is VSTOL, it's one of the things that's resulted in an overly complex and expensive plane in my opinion. If you can find a cheaper solution like flying off an existing road net then why not got that way.
Whaaaaat?
The F-18 evolved from the YF-17 which was part of the same lighweight fighter program that produced the F-16 which beat it out. The lightweight fighter mafia in the USAF in the 1970s was concerned with weight, cost and capability and helped produced some very good aircraft.
With modern electronics and weapons a Sabre would be marginally effective, if you built enough of them you'd have a credible deterent. But being cost effective doesn't have to mean going back to 1950s technology, just shopping around for other options.
Perhaps, but I've been around long enough to get pissed off when pissed apon by politicians of whatever political stripe.
Last edited:
It's over 30 years old though and the most modern version of the F-15 the K is about the same price as the F-35.
The question is what do we need the new fighters for? Are they going to be capable multi-role fighters that help secure our airspace and provide an effective air support in international missions or are we going to get into some meaningless arms race for superiority that is poorly defined and will cost more than we can afford.
From whom are we protecting our borders? The Danes? The Americans? The Icelanders? From refugee ships? From UFOs?
Has the threat been defined? Has the plane requisite to defend against this threat been thought through? Has the plane we think we need been through the tender process?
Has the threat been defined? Has the plane requisite to defend against this threat been thought through? Has the plane we think we need been through the tender process?
I have a much better idea. Let's build great big stealth blimps and use them as stationary, high altitude weapons platforms with lasers and death rays of varying sorts and drop tanks made from indestructable nano carbon tubes.
Kinda like a mini death star but within the atmosphere.
Now that I'd pay for no problem.
Kinda like a mini death star but within the atmosphere.
Now that I'd pay for no problem.
Did I get the letter wrong? I thought the F-15E was the so-called "Silent Eagle".
In any case the F-15 is a proven airframe and we need something with a decent speed, range and
weapons systems to counter any perceived threat. I admit we don't need a hundred million dollar
aircraft for every job but for a country with the length of borders we have we do need some kind of
patrol aircraft. The F-15 seems the best choice.
The US has used static blimps with high tech radar to defend it's southern border for years, this isn't as crazy as it sounds.