during the cold war their was some logic in buying super expensive tech.... actually their never was, their is some logic in creating it and selling it of course as the spinoff tech may reap a return on the investment but who are we planning on defending ourselves against and seriously who the PUCK are we kidding?
the ppl who fight from grass huts and caves.... yeah right.
their was a time prior to missiles that could circle the earth impacting targets where accuracy is measured in inches when having every tool at your disposal was the difference between winning and losing but those days are done, I believe it's time for Canada to think forward and not ass backwards.
but beyond that perhaps it's time Canada began resurrecting the old Avro Arrow project, modernizing it and using it..... their is no large scale significant enemy on the block and while the Arrow today would be outdated it's far better than what the ppl living in caves and grass huts have and employing more Canadians while striving for more high tech R&D is always a good thing.... if we have to waste the money I'd opt for that route personally.
the old / mature F-16's we have now are superior to everything and anything Al Queda will be getting it's hands on anytime soon so do we really need them?...
Russia?... the (red menace) they are capitalists and oligarchs now, besides we'd get our asked kicked no matter what we tried
Canada is not a large country and given we are getting so close to the possibility of fighting wars using drones with no pilots the F-35 seems like a stupid waste of coin.
And do you know what kind of flighthours those have? IIRC, the Canadian F-16s have already been refurbished once(some even twice?) and thats not the same as resetting their lifespan. And if you think F-16s are good enough, well then you might as well replace them with SAAB-39s. The drawback is range, but in everything else they´re superior to the 16s, including potentially cheaper.
Actually they are old CF-18 ( aka CF-188 , same thing ) Hornets, not F-16s...
We could use more ships ( Coast Guard ) and new reliable Search and Rescue Helicopters , instead of useless expensive fighter jet fleet...
The reason Canada went with the F18's in the first place was the dual engine design. It was decided (wisely) that any fighter servicing the arctic needed 2 engines, should one fail. That proved to be a good decision, as it saved more than one life(and aircraft) so far. I don't think we should abandon that idea.
Our fighters should, first and formost, be able to service the countries needs, not oversees missions.
The F-35 are a poor choice for those reasons. I'm not sure what way to go right now, but making Canada's single largest military purchase on somthing that has as many uncertanties as it does at this stage seems like pure folly. But then, the Conservatives were never known to make good economic desicions for the country, just for their buddies.
You need to consider that the F-35, like the F-18 is not just a fighter, but a multi-role combat aircraft. A Typhoon, or a Rafale is a pure air-superiority fighter
and that has benefits in terms of maintenance and parts
That limits the options available . . . dramatically . . . and I don't see Canada buying Su-33s do you?
Direwolf had Sweden chosen to spend decades modernizing it's military the end result would have been the same but have taken 2 days longer, Sweden would have wasted all of that coin and still failed, it like Canada is too small a player for the forces that were in play which is my point.Direwolf wrote:Thats roughly how Swedish politicians were thinking in the 1920s. HUGE MISTAKE.
actually I sort of can, jet fighters are cool but let's be honest Canada can't afford to cover all of the bases, Canada is not a hostile / aggressive nation and if we plan towards defense then the issue is not about bringing a fighter to an air battle it's about bringing a means to pick off fighters so that the enemy can't use them.Direwolf wrote:So you can predict the future with perfection then? I certainly cant.
I agree with most of this and only approve of the option in hopes of spinoff economic benefits that return some of the expense.Direwolf wrote:Better to start over, and doing that domestically, sure why not, Canada may be a bit low on experience currently but it can probably handle a decent lightweight multirolefighter. But you might well be spending about as much as you would on F-35s anyway.
that is a technical limitation that will be addressed in the near future, my guess less than 10 years no more than 20.Direwolf wrote:Drones are at its worst against advanced enemies.
I'd go with that, Canada could make use of a new helo fleet that is more versatile.Hammer Time wrote:There are cheaper competitors that could fulfil this role for much cheaper. How about less F-35's and more choppas?
I wonder if NATO is being as slow as Canada in it's reasoning.... they can't see past the old cold war mentality or aren't ready to admit it.Celt wrote:The F-35 is going to be the main NATO multi-role fighter for the next 40 odd years, and that has benefits in terms of maintenance and parts
I know it's why it was mentioned.Akram wrote:Reading someone mention Al-Qaeda in a air fighter's thread is quite ridiculous just to mention it.
sure, the problem being the political and immediate financial hits when a fighter doesn't make it home after flying over the arctic because of malfunction.Direwolf wrote:True, but you DO realize that adding a 2nd engine raises the running cost radically, like 50% or more?
I agree.Fuzz wrote:The other issues with the F-35's is our mid air refueling planes can't handle them. So that's another cost for upgrades or replacements. ANd our northern airstrips are to small, so parachutes need to be added to the planes for northern service. I'd imagine that's a major hassle for a pilot to deal with. THe planes just don't make sense for Canada.
As for the argument of flying costs of f-18's because of dual engines, I think that's a pretty small argument and shouldn't play into the decision. When it comes down to it, as far as I'm aware those planes don't see a huge amount of airtime anyway.
The other issues wiht the F-35's is our mid air refueling planes can't handle them. So that's anothe rcost for upgrades or replacemnts.
ANd our northern airstrips are to small, so parachutes need to be added to the planes for northern service. I'd imagine that's a major hassel for a pilot to deal with. THe planes just don't make sense for Canada.
From what I have read briefly, it sounds like getting new F-18 E's are our best option. Everyone already knows how to use them, the infrastructure is there and the pricetag is about 4 billion all in. Sure, they will not be a long-long term replacement, but so what. In 20 years, there will probably be a better option anyway. I'd rather spend 4 billion now, and 20 billion later when we actually have some solid info on how these jets will perform in the arctic.
Direwolf had Sweden chosen to spend decades modernizing it's military the end result would have been the same but have taken 2 days longer, Sweden would have wasted all of that coin and still failed, it like Canada is too small a player for the forces that were in play which is my point.
yes Direwolf if only Sweden had Militarized prior to Germany beginning World War II, without a doubt Sweden would have been the deciding factor and the U.S. and Canada would never have needed to fight in Europe at all and just kicked Japan's ass instead.THE SAME?? How can you be so utterly clueless?
note the sarcasm.
Direwolf what do you believe Sweden would have accomplished back in 1939 when Germany started it's war, do you really believe Sweden would have been the answer Europe and Russia didn't have?The extreme stupidity overrides it with ease.
If you want to be dumb, fine.
DIREWOLF75 wrote:The other issues wiht the F-35's is our mid air refueling planes can't handle them. So that's anothe rcost for upgrades or replacemnts.
Hmm? Dont you use NATO standard already?
Celt wrote:You need to consider that the F-35, like the F-18 is not just a fighter, but a multi-role combat aircraft. A Typhoon, or a Rafale is a pure air-superiority fighter
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest