F-35 JSF. Canada's new jet?
- Thread starter Starscream
- Start date
As I recall, the Velvet Glove homing missile was one of those programs that was beaten to death by politicians. It was originally supposed to be used on the CF-100 and it still wasn't ready when the Arrow was looming just around the corner and somebody asked if the Valvet Glove could be fired from a supersonic platform..........Back to the drawing board. To make a long story shorter, it just ran out of time. I think they finally settled on the American Sparrow 2 or 3.
With the $80-100 Million saved PER jet, I am pretty sure you could invest in some homemade or converted technology. When the factor of fighting the country you originally got the technology off, America would be just as fast as Russia to stop parts supply, satellite links and everything they possibly could.
The chances of Canada and the US facing off are slim to none. On the other hand Canada facing off against a Russian supplied adversary is more than likely. It's not the aircraft that wins the fight but the armament it carries. American missiles are light years ahead of anything the Russians manufacture.
As for the Russian aircraft being better in a close dogfight that might be so (I doubt it but will give the benefit of the doubt) but aerial battles are now fought with missiles at a hundred plus kilometers, fancy "cobra" maneuvers can't help you then.
As for the Russian aircraft being better in a close dogfight that might be so (I doubt it but will give the benefit of the doubt) but aerial battles are now fought with missiles at a hundred plus kilometers, fancy "cobra" maneuvers can't help you then.
A hundred plus kilometres gives you plenty of time to set out tea. You know if something over the horizon has a radar lock.
Ouch. A 759km comabt range for the Raptor. Although whith two external tanks it gets almost 3000km. How much"stealth" does it lose with the extra tanks?
There is no good reason. Sorry. Mabey the same reason we don't have our own car company. We build cars here and aircraft, trains and boats and nuclear reactors. We could certainly try to build a military fighter aricraft. and mabey submarines too. and ice breaking ships and so on. Ones that fit the role we would want them to do very unlike our newest submarine bargain.
I am just as confused as to why we don't as you. Every canadian should retch violently at the memory of the loss of the Arrow, and our sea kings crashing on ships with no replacement in sight and the murderous used submarines.
Bombardier should come up with it's own line of quality fighter jets, that way we wont need to keep buying used international fighter jets.
Commoon Mates.
It seems that you guys really don't seem to understand the differences between UAV's, F-35s, F-22s F-18s, etc. Simply put, Canada along with everyone elsebuys more planes then needed so they can rob parts from spare aircraft of the same make if something fails. With the F-18s, we are running out of parts, the aircraft are very old and do have problems (although for being so old they have proven to be very reliable). A new fighter is nessicary in the coming years because if the time does come when we need to defend our borders (think about the russians here and all that oil that's being freed up in the north now), then we're going to need something that can do it quick. F-22s are much too expensive and I don't even understand how the us can afford it, yes it's by far the best air combat fighter but it's just not worthwhile. F-35s are a good balance between affordable and advanced. It's hulla easier to use then most aircraft and could easily beat out one of our formidable cf-18s, cf-35s in my opinion are totally nessicary. However we do need to by enough of them to make it worthwhile, anything less than 50 seems foolhardy. We could buy aging jets just to replace stuff on them, or new jets with a surplus so we can have a strong airforce for at least another 40 years. UAV's do not have pilot instinct, nor the ability to respond to a problem creatively like a human can, it's why we still have pilot's in the first place, or the driver in a regular car.
The F-35 (B variant can go from hovering to a supersonic sprint, that's unheard of in any fighter including the f-22 or harrier.) was designed to be stealthy and to be able to be more reliable, less maintence needy and better than post generation fighters, it would definately pay off considering that we have helped develop it and have already made a huge investment which hasa already paid off economically. Contracts from the f-35 program in canada have helped us make billions off of our simple 100 million dollars from our DND to make us a third level participant.
I think it would just be awful if we didn't take up the f-35, a fighter that canada and MANY other countries are making together, it is not just the states, it's canada, the us, israel, norway, denmark, australia, turkey, the netherlands, italy and the uk. We helped design it, we should be flying it just as many of those counties plan to be (australia and israel for sure.)
It seems that you guys really don't seem to understand the differences between UAV's, F-35s, F-22s F-18s, etc. Simply put, Canada along with everyone elsebuys more planes then needed so they can rob parts from spare aircraft of the same make if something fails. With the F-18s, we are running out of parts, the aircraft are very old and do have problems (although for being so old they have proven to be very reliable). A new fighter is nessicary in the coming years because if the time does come when we need to defend our borders (think about the russians here and all that oil that's being freed up in the north now), then we're going to need something that can do it quick. F-22s are much too expensive and I don't even understand how the us can afford it, yes it's by far the best air combat fighter but it's just not worthwhile. F-35s are a good balance between affordable and advanced. It's hulla easier to use then most aircraft and could easily beat out one of our formidable cf-18s, cf-35s in my opinion are totally nessicary. However we do need to by enough of them to make it worthwhile, anything less than 50 seems foolhardy. We could buy aging jets just to replace stuff on them, or new jets with a surplus so we can have a strong airforce for at least another 40 years. UAV's do not have pilot instinct, nor the ability to respond to a problem creatively like a human can, it's why we still have pilot's in the first place, or the driver in a regular car.
The F-35 (B variant can go from hovering to a supersonic sprint, that's unheard of in any fighter including the f-22 or harrier.) was designed to be stealthy and to be able to be more reliable, less maintence needy and better than post generation fighters, it would definately pay off considering that we have helped develop it and have already made a huge investment which hasa already paid off economically. Contracts from the f-35 program in canada have helped us make billions off of our simple 100 million dollars from our DND to make us a third level participant.
I think it would just be awful if we didn't take up the f-35, a fighter that canada and MANY other countries are making together, it is not just the states, it's canada, the us, israel, norway, denmark, australia, turkey, the netherlands, italy and the uk. We helped design it, we should be flying it just as many of those counties plan to be (australia and israel for sure.)
F-35 JSF on WASP class ships
We could deploy some F-35 JSF on WASP class ships all modified for artic conditions. On the ships we could place some LCAC`s to hunt for Subs and break-up ice. We need to place some muscles up north.
We could deploy some F-35 JSF on WASP class ships all modified for artic conditions. On the ships we could place some LCAC`s to hunt for Subs and break-up ice. We need to place some muscles up north.
The last operational jet fighter Canada built was the F100 in the mid fifties. The last attempt to build an advanced fighter was with the ill fated Arrow program of the late 1950's. The latter was a superb aircraft, state of the art for the world, but the foreign sales it was dependent on failed when advancing missile technology made the high speed, high altitude interceptor redundant.. replaced with multipurpose weapons platforms like the F4.
No single medium size country, even the most highly industrialized has the ability to produce a competitive jet fighter these days. The Europeans banded together to produce the Eurofighter. The U.S., Russia, now China are the only ones capable of financing and applying the resources needed for development of their own.
Canada is also a much different place than it was in the 1950s, when it had a vibrant manufacturing base, and ample talent to apply to military development. Free Trade has gutted that capacity and made us a much poorer nation in every respect.. so must now purchase virtually all our military hardware, ships, planes, tanks, artillery from foreign sellers.
At this point the F35 is likely the only fighter we can afford and which meets the requirements of either being dual engined or capable of vertical landing in the case of main engine failure (i believe the hovering systems and propulsion systems are separate), which Canada favours because of the distances between landing strips in Canada.
Some feel we are in the last generation of manned aircraft, the future belonging to unmanned platforms, but personally i doubt that.
You would have to first shell out a lot of loonies to buy some WASP class ships. Then you would have to do some serious refitting to get them to do what you want. The Wasp type ships are for Amphibious warfare and would be almost useless as made. LCACs are landing craft and are not used to break ice or hunt subs. Most likely they would be destroyed going over jagged ice.
The CF-100 was an intercepter. The best fighter built in Canada was the Canadair Sabre. We built Sabres for the British, the Germans, and we even built a few for the USAF among others. Canadair built a total of 1815 Sabres.
Canadair F-86 Sabre Jet
Canadair F-86 Sabre Jet
Last edited:
heh
Kelsey D. Atherton @AthertonKD
Chuck Yeager is now tweeting F-35 replacement options at Donald Trump
Kelsey D. Atherton @AthertonKD Chuck Yeager is now tweeting F-35 replacement options at Donald Trump
It was the Canadian designed and built Orenda engines that made them special ... that, and improved control hydraulics.