F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

The Forum is the place to go for more serious non-computer-related discussions. The rules of conduct here are more strict than they are elsewhere on X-bit labs. Adult language should be kept to a bare minimum. All posts must be related to the topic thread.

Moderators: CPUagnostic, MTX, Celt, Hammer_Time, Sauron_Daz, Tacitus, Anna

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:03 pm

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?

Thats roughly how Swedish politicians were thinking in the 1920s. HUGE MISTAKE.
When Germany started to rumble in the mid 30s, military equipment was almost impossible to buy because all who produced it kept it for themself.

If you personally can guarantee without flaw that there will be absolutely no need for this equipment for the next 20 years, yeah then you dont need it quite as much...
It takes 10-20 years to aquire the hardware. AFTER that´s started, you can start training the personnel, which takes at minimum a few years... IF you have an already functional structure to train them that is. And thats where you find the most lovely part, its damned hard to have that base structure if you dont keep up to date overall with a big enough military. And to rebuild THAT, it takes at least 20 years.

the ppl who fight from grass huts and caves.... yeah right.

So you can predict the future with perfection then? I certainly cant.

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.

Thats a technonerd´s view. Its 60 years ago people absolutely KNEW that next generation fighterplanes wouldnt need guns ever again.

Guess what, they were wrong. So wrong in fact that even today, there are plenty attempts at designing better fighter guns. And no new fighters are built without guns.

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.

Would be a bad idea. It was a great design at its time, but today it has so many flaws compared to the competition that its better to just start a new design from scratch.
AND, its a BIG plane, and big equals expensive. The SAAB-39 doesnt reach the Arrows empty weight even at max load.
Its also much too shortranged and just modernising probably wont fix that more than marginally.

A modernised Arrow would be a terrible cost/efficiency. 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.

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?...

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.

If Canada wasnt so big i would totally recommend that even.
Im not sure what would be most suitable for Canada though, it has some tricky combinations of requirements. Typhoon would be suitable but is way too expensive.
Rafale is alot cheaper and keeps many of the good points of Typhoon, but its still rather expensive.
Canada doesnt really have any "perfect" alternatives. But it NEEDS SOMETHING.
Whenever countries start disarming, war tends to happen, because there´s always someone somewhere who thinks that anyone disarming equals easy pickings.
They´re usually not very right, but wars still happen and it takes a lot to stop them.

Russia?... the (red menace) they are capitalists and oligarchs now, besides we'd get our asked kicked no matter what we tried

The question might not be if you can "kick their ass", no the IMPORTANT question is, how costly will it be for them or whoever else that might think of it, how much will they have to pay for it?

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.

Drones are at its worst against advanced enemies. Any enemy you would need an airforce against will likely be an advanced enemy. And drones have some serious vulnerabilites then.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 16495
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby Hammer_Time » Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:30 pm

I agree with you Clone, and ranted about it already here: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=18267

We could use more ships ( Coast Guard ) and new reliable Search and Rescue Helicopters , instead of useless expensive fighter jet fleet...

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...

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/equ ... ex-eng.asp

"Canada Day Edition CF-18" :wink: :

http://img159.imageshack.us/i/cf18fdl2.jpg/sr=1

Image

Oops!! :

Image

Our full air force:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/index-eng.asp

Notice how they ALREADY include the yet-to-be purchased F-35's in the complete list there!!?? :shock: :fist: :x :P :roll:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 37099
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:47 pm

Actually they are old CF-18 ( aka CF-188 , same thing ) Hornets, not F-16s...

Oh yeah. I thought it sounded a bit odd with 16s in Canada but i didnt bother to check and since more than 4/5 F-16s are well beyond their original lifespan, well i know only USA has any of the last 1/5 left with few flighthours...

Well at least the 18s tend to be slightly better condition, not to mention a good bit easier to upgrade. OTOH, they´re also heavier and dual engine, meaning they´re damned lot more expensive to fly than F-16s.

We could use more ships ( Coast Guard ) and new reliable Search and Rescue Helicopters , instead of useless expensive fighter jet fleet...

Fighter planes comes in VERY handy when you need them.
But of course, Canada has a silly amount of coast and water to keep an eye on so certainly it needs more ships and helis, and i can say that confidently even though i dont know how much it has now.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 16495
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby Fuzz » Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:47 pm

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.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 8398
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby Hammer_Time » Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:43 pm

Yup, we do need replacement jet fighters, the question is why the F-35's are the only option, no-bid contract awarded to them. There are cheaper competitors that could fulfil this role for much cheaper. How about less F-35's and more choppas???
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 37099
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby Celt » Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:34 am

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, where the F-35 can also be a tactical strike aircraft for example, so you get two jobs for the price of one and that traditionally is how Canada sees its air force - not so much pure intercept, but as a flexible force that can be deployed in many different circumstances. That limits the options available . . . dramatically . . . and I don't see Canada buying Su-33s do you? 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, especially when deployed, so it has probably been Hobson's choice.
You don't have to be a megalomaniac to moderate this forum . . . but it helps!
Image
1123.6536.5321 - More than a number, it's our home!
User avatar
Celt
SpamCrusher Mod
 
Posts: 9912
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: The Land of Concrete Cows

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby Akram » Sun Mar 13, 2011 1:37 am

Reading someone mention Al-Qaeda in a air fighter's thread is quite ridiculous just to mention it.
User avatar
Akram
X-bit Swami
 
Posts: 6617
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:08 pm
Location: Egypt, Alexandria. Land of Alexander the Gay.

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby Sauron_Daz » Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:45 am

Why so? It was used to illustrate something.
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 35981
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:27 am

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... :mrgreen:

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?).
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 16495
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby Fuzz » Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:28 am

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.

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.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 8398
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby Hammer_Time » Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:12 am

F4 Phantom FTW!!! :twisted: :lol:

Image

It's "multirole" and cheap!!!!

You can get these cheap ( used ) too:


Image
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 37099
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:24 am

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.

Finland have been pissed off for a long time now because of the high operating costs of their F/A-18s.
And its simply fact that the engine is the single most complex part on a fighter, and having two means you´re doubling the "fun".
Not flying them reduces the effect, but it is still there and if you´re flying them too little you risk additional problems from that aside from having a poor airforce.

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?

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.

Yeah, and USA isnt exactly known for building military equipment suitable for cold climates. That was one of the main reasons why Sweden picked the Leopard tank above the M1, because when the M1 was here for the winter trials(the summer trials it did just fine in), it actually ended up getting towed around several times by either the Leopard 2 or the T-80U that was also taking part. That was utter embarassment for them to say the least. They have since improved matters, but its not normal design standards.

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.

Certainly true. The expense caused by the -18s might very well be a tradeoff against what it would cost to replace or add the support system for new planes.
Even with standardisation, this tends to be quite costly.
I dont think it would even out if compared to a cheaper competititor, but the F-35 ISNT one of the cheaper ones.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 16495
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:32 am

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.

THE SAME?? :roll: How can you be so utterly clueless?
The above is about on par with a certain other posters claim about what a great idea it would have been to invade nazi Germany across the Alps from Italy.

Having an airforce, effective weapons and the ammo needed for them wouldnt make a difference? That´s so far out you left the known universe far behind.

Im practically stunned by your complete lack of logic.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 16495
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:23 pm

note the sarcasm.

The extreme stupidity overrides it with ease.

If you want to be dumb, fine.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 16495
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby Fuzz » Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:11 pm

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?


I don't know much about that, jsut read it here:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/31/cana ... n-mid-air/

And they mention needing entirely new aircraft, not just a retrofit.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 8398
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby Tiggerz » Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:22 pm

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


Is not designed as such though, it is air, sea and land capable. The initial batch which are currently only air superiority models will be upgraded. I would suggest that it partners the F35 quite nicely.
My posts in X-Bit forums don't mean I condone racist or discriminatory comments made by forum members regarding any other individuals. I support the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights & recognize that all people are born free & equal in dignity & rights & should be treated accordingly in the spirit of brotherhood, freedom, justice and peace in the world
User avatar
Tiggerz
X-bit Guru
 
Posts: 2709
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 11:23 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby Hammer_Time » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:11 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multirole_combat_aircraft

A multirole combat aircraft is an aircraft designed to act in at least two different roles in the combat. The primary role is usually a fighter—hence, it is as often called a multirole fighter—while the secondary role is usually air-to-surface attack. More roles are added, such as air reconnaissance, forward air control, and electronic warfare. As of the subtypes of attack missions, besides the most often air interdiction, there may be suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), or even close air support (CAS).

Strike fighter, which similarly refers to a fighter capable of attack role, for historical reasons implies putting more emphasis on the interdiction aspect.

The main motivation for developing multirole aircraft is cost reduction. A fleet of multirole aircraft, when comparing to separate fleets of dedicated aircraft, costs less to develop, to manufacture, to maintain, and to supply. Some aircraft are called swing-role, to emphasize the ability of a quick role change, either at short notice, or even within the same mission.


See full list of "multirole" jets in the chart in that link above, most have already been mentioned in this thread.

I agree the F-35 is probably the "best" multirole jet fighter currently, but it is also the most expensive by a long shot too.
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 37099
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:34 am

Fuzz wrote:
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?


I don't know much about that, jsut read it here:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/31/cana ... n-mid-air/

And they mention needing entirely new aircraft, not just a retrofit.


I checked it up and the reason is the location of the nozzle on the F-35. Canada uses only hose equipped tankers, like USAs marine corps(so thats another place this same problem is coming up) while USAs standard airforce tankers have both the boom and hose system mounted.
And those that are boom-only can be relatively easily converted to hose&drouge even if it adds risk to the refueling due to there being no automatic windup mechanism for the hose to keep it stretched.
Not so easily done the other way around though.



Is not designed as such though, it is air, sea and land capable. The initial batch which are currently only air superiority models will be upgraded. I would suggest that it partners the F35 quite nicely.

As i already said, second flight Typhoons, currently being delivered has the full capability while the original flight mainly requires software updates and some wiring and contact installations. And the Rafale was multirole from the start.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 16495
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby Fuzz » Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:15 am

I have to disagree about not needing any fighters. Its a sovereignty thing. If a plane was hijacked over Canadian airspace, would you rather we scramble our fighters, or call in US ones? If the Russians try to push Arctic borders(as they keep doing) we really should have the ability to show a presence there, quickly. If we are having a Gray Cup game, are we going to get the Blue Angels to fly over the stadium? OK, that last one might not be as important.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 8398
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: F-35 Lightning a total waste for Canada or no?

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:18 am

See full list of "multirole" jets in the chart in that link above, most have already been mentioned in this thread.

"examples" list. NOT full list.

I agree the F-35 is probably the "best" multirole jet fighter currently, but it is also the most expensive by a long shot too.

It isnt, because its still not operational. Wiki says its to become operation 2016. But its already slipped several times.

If the Russians try to push Arctic borders(as they keep doing) we really should have the ability to show a presence there, quickly.

If USA gets an administration of the GWB style again, it could easily be USA that starts pushing in this area. Obama seems to have pretty much ended the provocative stuff straight away, but lots of people in high places in USA obviously considers it an open question where exactly the borders away from the mainland are.

As it is NOW, Russia is unlikely to do anything beyond trying to haggle and argue to get the best finalised deal on borders in the Arctic that they can, but wild shifts in politics has happened before.

However, another important matter is that we´re seeing the rather infamous "northwest passage" more and more ice-free with each year, and since it will drastically shorten several traderoutes, and probably even cause new ones to appear, it might not be many years before there is quite heavy traffic there, at least during summer.
And if the ice stays light enough, polar certified cargo ships will eventually use the route in winter as well. And any and all important trade sea routes close to a country NEEDS coverage. Or someone WILL try to take advantage of it sooner or later.

I have to disagree about not needing any fighters. Its a sovereignty thing.

Very much so. Its not a matter of being the "top dog" everywhere, its matter of asserting control and sovereignty.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 16495
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Next

Return to The Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests