If not the F-35, then what?

[Captain Awesome]

none of this is true and the point of selling energy to our enemy china makes no sense if you really believe what you just posted here.canada needs to be canada, not trying to be a mini us. we dont have the money to be a real power anymore, we dont even have nukes so at best we might be able to take on jamaica

Feel free to repost this with complete sentences and coherent thoughts so I can respond appropriately.

[hobbyguy]

I agree with CA that we need a capable air force, but also one that we can afford.

Assuming that we are going with US made multi - role fighters, then I guess it's the Super Hornet. Affordable, capable, twin engine, good range, lowish operating costs, and much, much cheaper than the F35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

Certainly more than capable of fulfilling our NATO obligations, and probably more capable of performing our domestic defense needs.

If it's good enough for the US Navy...

[rookie314]

You do know that it first flew in 1995 which makes it almost 20 year old technology and in fact they are going to close the assembly line very soon.

[maryjane48]

removed*

[Jx3]

Stephen Harper wanted Canadian Aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, if you recall.

Actually I don't recall that at all. Care to provide link to back this up to refresh my memory or is it just more rhetoric and hyperbole?

[Jx3]

I agree with CA that we need a capable air force, but also one that we can afford.

As a taxpayer, can't say I disagree with this at all.

Assuming that we are going with US made multi - role fighters, then I guess it's the Super Hornet. Affordable, capable, twin engine, good range, lowish operating costs, and much, much cheaper than the F35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

Certainly more than capable of fulfilling our NATO obligations, and probably more capable of performing our domestic defense needs.

If it's good enough for the US Navy...

Agree to an extent however justifying it by saying "If it's good enough for the US Navy" doesn't really hold water because the US Navy is heavily committed to the F-35 program and the F-18 Super Hornet is essentially just a stop-gap fighter until the F-35 becomes fully operational. The RAAF is doing the same.

[hobbyguy]

The "stop gap" seems more political spin to me, than actual performance based decision making.

This article concludes that for the same money as we spend for a very limited number of f35s, we can have more Super Hornets, add "Growlers" to eliminate the need for stealth (although the Super Hornet has been made stealthier), and have money left over for a full blown UAV program: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-right-fighter-for-canada-is-the-super-hornet-not-t-1587492909

Seems logical to me. Especially when you consider that the Super Hornet is designed to operate in harsh environments, and will last longer than the F35. Plus the Super Hornet has 35% more range than the current CF18, which is a big deal in a country of our size.