Well when one go to buy something like a new computer or a DVD,he knows how much it is and cost,the government clearly knew,only an idiot would buy something without knowing the price.
Documents show Tories knew F-35 was unaffordable
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Well when one go to buy something like a new computer or a DVD,he knows how much it is and cost,the government clearly knew,only an idiot would buy something without knowing the price.
Not yet but from what was told apparently we'll have to pay for that even if the purchase is cancelled,just like for the helicopters a few years ago.
Well Canada has already invested in the program. They helped develop the F-35.
See the 6th flag from the left?
I believe Canada really does need to be on the cutting edge. Having spent many hours over Arctic rock and cold water in a 20-year-old airplane that was prone to engine failures and lousy in a 14kt crosswind, I'm kind of biased, I guess. The CF-18 is an excellent frame - but aging. That being said, if the fighter is intended for Arctic sovereignty, it's my opinion the F-35 isn't the right tool for the job.
First off, it needs too much ground support. Infrastructure is the first thing to go should shyte happen. My preference would be something akin to robust Russian fighters - where you can dig it out of a snowbank, plug in an APU and go skyward.
Second, with the size of our projected fleet, in a defense role, I would prefer something that presents the radar image of a much larger incoming fleet to any potential threat with the ability to detect.
Third, a back-up engine would be a major plus. Experience taught me that even one feathered propeller and three spinning ones is un-nerving as hell when you're a long way from home. I never did jets, but I do know zoomies like getting home too.
Damn! It's a pretty airplane, though....
First off, it needs too much ground support. Infrastructure is the first thing to go should shyte happen. My preference would be something akin to robust Russian fighters - where you can dig it out of a snowbank, plug in an APU and go skyward.
Second, with the size of our projected fleet, in a defense role, I would prefer something that presents the radar image of a much larger incoming fleet to any potential threat with the ability to detect.
Third, a back-up engine would be a major plus. Experience taught me that even one feathered propeller and three spinning ones is un-nerving as hell when you're a long way from home. I never did jets, but I do know zoomies like getting home too.
Damn! It's a pretty airplane, though....
Do we really need all what?
A fleet of CL-415's might be a great investment - especially if doomsayer predictions for a perma-green Arctic came true - but if you ever had to assist them, you'd want something as good as or better than the bad guys who bounced them....
"unaffordable" is a nebulous term in much the same way as there is are people who can afford to drink beer and play bingo but can't afford nutritious food.
What if we just said screw the F-35s - there is no real need to defend the arctic?
There's more to Canada than just the Arctic. Looked at a map lately? If you're an insurance guy, would you sell off the firetrucks because there hasn't been a fire in the hood for a few years?
Well if we need planes to "defend" the arctic,we'd better take a model that can handle the cold climate,and the F-35 may not be the best choice,we could get them from a nation that knows cold like we do.
About as stupid as saying screw the cops, no banks are going to get robbed. :lol:
We hope not. So did Britain ... like in 1935. There's money involved, so go figure.
Boy Scouts have a motto: Be Prepared. Good Intel....
Just as applicable here
Boy Scouts have a motto: Be Prepared. Good Intel....
Just as applicable here
Last edited: