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.
True, but you DO realise that adding a 2nd engine raises the running cost radically, like 50% or more?
Our fighters should, first and formost, be able to service the countries needs, not oversees missions.
Of course!
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.
+1
F-35 gives some of the bad sides of a large 2 engine fighter while not having its good sides. It certainly wont end up a bad plane, but it may end up VERY expensive.
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
Totally incorrect. The initial production run of the Typhoon was air to air only to get the production started early(it could physically carry the munitions but it lacked the SOFTWARE and pylon connections), second and current production run(Tranche 2) is totally multirole and the early planes are slowly being upgraded to Tranche 2 standard.
Rafale has never been anything but multirole.
and that has benefits in terms of maintenance and parts
IF USA lets you handle your own maintenance rather than enforcing the rule of "anything breaks, you have to send it to USA for fixing, you´re not authorised to open the box", as they did to Norway in particular and other F-35 buyers in general.
That limits the options available . . . dramatically . . . and I don't see Canada buying Su-33s do you?
Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen. All 3 are 100% multirole, the former 2 are twin engined while the latter is waaay cheaper to operate.
The Rafale is a good midpoint compromise if you want to try to get the best from everywhere. It wont be cheaper to operate than the F-35 but it will be a lot cheaper to buy at least.
The HAL Tejas from India is less advanced but its fairly small, its the cheapest alternative and still manages to have good range and while its weapon load isnt exactly superheavy its still multirole. It fails Fuzz preference for twin engines, but thats the tradeoff for its low operating costs.
The SK Kai KF-X and the Indian MCA wont be ready until at the very earliest 2020 so they´re out.
The Yak-130 is a hypersmall twin engine trainer/multirole fighter that is literally dirt cheap. The Italian-built Aermacchi M-346 that was developed from the Yak-130 is still a bargain and has pretty much the same abilities but with NATO-standard hardpoints instead of Russian standard ones.
Both planes have the downside of low topspeed though(just Mach 1.2), but excellent range. But they´re probably the cheapest good twin engine planes you can find.
The Czech Aero L-159 is another trainer/multirole fighter but its subsonic so i expect that makes it a no go.
South Korean Kai T-50 is another trainer/multirole fighter, a bit speedier and a bit more expensive, a fair choice. Its only downside is that its designed more like a 70s or 80s fighter than the 21st century one it is. OTOH, that was deliberate to make it cheap, and it very much IS. An absolute bargain at around 20-25M USD, only the Yak-130 comes in cheaper.
Mitsubishi is sofar only building a tech demonstrator so their next generation plane wont be around for a long time yet.
Their F-2 is like a hypered up F-16 and is a decent plane though. At far over 100M USD per plane its ridiculously expensive though(even if the price includes extras normally not included in the pricetag, its still a bloody expensive plane no matter how good).
The MiG-35 if it ever goes beyond prototype isnt too bad. Midsized but with twin engines.
And no, i most certainly dont expect Canada to buy Su-33 since its the Russian carriercapable version of the Su-27...
And while the Su-30MKI fits Canadian needs very well, its a HUGE plane which means the bills for flying them is likewise BIG. And while its very capable overall, its primary job is air superiority rather than multirole.
Sure it would be "shocking" to have Canada go with a Russian built plane but they have many marks on the good side, in part because they´re built for exactly the same kind of country and environment. Large, with lots of rough and cold areas.
The only non-Russian fighter you will find that can land and take off in the middle of nowhere is the Harrier family, and you wont be seeing any more newbuilds of that because as part of the F-35 VTOL version deal, the manufacturing tools for the Harrier II were
wrecked (gotta love military procurement politics dont you?).
:
