Canada says F-35s cost $14 B; Norway says they cost $40 B
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I've heard this BS line for two and a half decades while we send young people into the line of fire. I would like all the MP's to jump in a Sea King and use it as their mode of transportation when going to the next party convention. Or better yet they can put on some of the Vietnam era body armor they had our troops wearing in the former Yugoslavia. Or hey, how bout they go to Syria in that piece of fiberglass Bombardier built us that didn't stand up to IED's in Afghanistan.
Defense cost money, but the safety of our armed forces always comes secondary in the minds of many Canadians.
Stop sending them all over the fu cking planet and keep them home for DEFENSE. Then they would have the money they need and it would probably cost us less.
That has been my point exactly. If you don't want to pay for it, don't send them. But guess what? We keep sending them.
Governments want it both ways and Canadian's keep looking the other way.
It's shameful.
instead of flying f 35s and the pilots never making it back
"U.S. Air Force's most sophisticated stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by plane from 1970s... despite being the most expensive weapon in history
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-expensive-weapon-history.html#ixzz4A5p6ino1
"The designer of the F-16 explains why the F-35 is such a crappy plane"
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468
Last edited:
You hold a flight engineering degree?
Best bang for our buck. But this Prime Minister would rather get our soldiers killed on the ground than be a bad guy who bombs the enemy.
Actually, yes. I read most of Mentalfloss' posts and you cant get any more 'blindly ignorant' than that. He quotes all the experts too. I'm not sure if he's a gum chewer, but he's stubs his d!ck daily.
Take heed,
Please, don't blame your viewpoint on some one else
from my above link:
"According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, the F35 is a turkey. Inherently, a terrible airplane. An airplane built for a dumb idea. A kludge that will fail time and time again. Just impossibly hopeless. And judging from the bajillion times the F-35 fleet has been grounded, well, he's probably not wrong. It's a trillion dollar failure."
The designer of the F-16 explains why the F-35 is such a crappy plane
nuff said
from my above link:
"According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, the F35 is a turkey. Inherently, a terrible airplane. An airplane built for a dumb idea. A kludge that will fail time and time again. Just impossibly hopeless. And judging from the bajillion times the F-35 fleet has been grounded, well, he's probably not wrong. It's a trillion dollar failure."
The designer of the F-16 explains why the F-35 is such a crappy plane
nuff said
The VTOL version of the F-35 coukd very well cost that much more but why the Norwegians woukd want them is beyond me.
Part of the price you pay for being a NATO asset. I can see us needing fighter jets for close ait support but to use them to attack Russia we would need tankers and they aren't that stealthy that we can 'sneak' anyplace.
How about supersonic drones at a scale based on the arrow wing design.
How about supersonic drones at a scale based on the arrow wing design.
In all fairness, when the CF-18 replaced our old CF-5s, the only advantage the -18's had was BVR. Once they were in visual range, the F-5s "knocked" them out of the sky.
The F-35 is a dog though. Good thing Chretien cancelled the EH-101 contract so he could fork over $500 million to aid in its development.
Ever try to take off from a bombed out runway? :wink:
Check this out!
The Super Hornet under the microscope: How the fighter jet compares to the F-35 | National Post
Now, my expertise on warfare is absolutely of the armchair variety, especially when it comes to hi tech military aircraft......
But I have to say, the Super Hornet looks pretty damn good in this comparison.
The F-35 is superior in ceiling, by 3200 metres.......and it has stealth capability. In all other capabilities, the Super Hornet is superior.
It seems to me that the F-35 is only really valuable against the most sophisticated of enemies.....ie China, or Russia.
In the vast majority of cases, the Super Hornet would fill our needs quite well.
And the price of a Super Hornet is 40% that of an F-35.
Are the Liberals on to something?
I've got an idea that is unique and new.
Buy both.
Say 50 F/A 18 Super Hornets and 25 F-35 Lightnings.......
Anyone got an opinion?
The Super Hornet under the microscope: How the fighter jet compares to the F-35 | National Post
Now, my expertise on warfare is absolutely of the armchair variety, especially when it comes to hi tech military aircraft......
But I have to say, the Super Hornet looks pretty damn good in this comparison.
The F-35 is superior in ceiling, by 3200 metres.......and it has stealth capability. In all other capabilities, the Super Hornet is superior.
It seems to me that the F-35 is only really valuable against the most sophisticated of enemies.....ie China, or Russia.
In the vast majority of cases, the Super Hornet would fill our needs quite well.
And the price of a Super Hornet is 40% that of an F-35.
Are the Liberals on to something?
I've got an idea that is unique and new.
Buy both.
Say 50 F/A 18 Super Hornets and 25 F-35 Lightnings.......
Anyone got an opinion?
In all fairness, when the CF-18 replaced our old CF-5s,
The CF-18s replaced the CF-5s, the CF-104s, the CF-101s and the last lingering CF-100s all in one fell swoop.
Canada was the first purchaser of the F-18 (before the US Navy, even) and I remember how controversial the purchase of an untried fighter aircraft was
Did it rather well, wouldn't you say?
The big deal about the F-35 is the version with vertical take-off and landing, which doesn't interest us anyway. The British are locked in as they have built (are building) two big, new carriers that require that kind of aircraft and unless they dust off the Harriers, they have nowhere else to go. Talk about your multibillion pound boondoggles.
Buy the Mark 3 or 4 version of the F-35 after the flaws are fixed and the price is down.
The CF-18s replaced the CF-5s, the CF-104s, the CF-101s and the last lingering CF-100s all in one fell swoop.
Canada was the first purchaser of the F-18 (before the US Navy, even) and I remember how controversial the purchase of an untried fighter aircraft was
Did it rather well, wouldn't you say?
The big deal about the F-35 is the version with vertical take-off and landing, which doesn't interest us anyway. The British are locked in as they have built (are building) two big, new carriers that require that kind of aircraft and unless they dust off the Harriers, they have nowhere else to go. Talk about your multibillion pound boondoggles.
Buy the Mark 3 or 4 version of the F-35 after the flaws are fixed and the price is down.
If we could aquire very good Russian designs like the rest of the world can, we could significantly cut the cost and have a more effective heavier than air assault unit/ defence unit.
India has a big Russian airforce they buy the SU's all the time, best bang for your buck they say,
America makes junk.
The cost of arms in the USA is the end product, the weapon dosn't matter at all.
India has a big Russian airforce they buy the SU's all the time, best bang for your buck they say,
America makes junk.
The cost of arms in the USA is the end product, the weapon dosn't matter at all.