If not the F-35, then what?
- Captain Awesome
- Buddha of the Board
- Posts: 24998
- Joined: Jul 22nd, 2008, 5:06 pm
Re: If not the F-35, then what?
lakevixen wrote: 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.
Sarcasm is like a good game of chess. Most people don't know how to play chess.
-
- Buddha of the Board
- Posts: 15050
- Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Re: If not the F-35, then what?
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...
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...
The middle path - everything in moderation, and everything in its time and order.
-
- Übergod
- Posts: 1689
- Joined: Jun 11th, 2005, 10:00 am
Re: If not the F-35, then what?
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
- Buddha of the Board
- Posts: 17124
- Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm
Re: If not the F-35, then what?
removed*
Last edited by Triple 6 on Jun 11th, 2014, 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: personal attack removed.
Reason: personal attack removed.
-
- Übergod
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Nov 2nd, 2011, 7:46 pm
Re: If not the F-35, then what?
Atomoa wrote: 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?
Last edited by Jx3 on Jun 12th, 2014, 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Übergod
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Nov 2nd, 2011, 7:46 pm
Re: If not the F-35, then what?
hobbyguy wrote: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.
hobbyguy wrote: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.
-
- Buddha of the Board
- Posts: 15050
- Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Re: If not the F-35, then what?
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.
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.
The middle path - everything in moderation, and everything in its time and order.