[bootlegga]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

200 million? That's more than the cost of the Raptor.

We should just buy the damn Raptors then, at least they have two engines.

It'll never happen. The US has zero desire to import that technology to anyone.

Yep, guess it'll have to be Typhoons, which at $125-150 million per are suddenly a steal!

[Thanos]

Suspend the purchase until the final price gets written in stone. Fuck you Lockheed. This is bullshit.

[DrCaleb]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

200 million? That's more than the cost of the Raptor.

We should just buy the damn Raptors then, at least they have two engines.

Don't think we're allowed. Although that would be a lovely turn of events.

Doesn't matter if we are allowed, the F-22 project is shelved. They were too expensive.

/irony

[weaselways]

Do the same thing that Auz has done, go out and buy Super Hornets. Our Air Force is familar with the Hornet, its two engine and while not 5th generation its has the electronics and profile to be 4.5. Buying 65 of them and DND will come in under budget.

[Canadian_Mind]

I have to admit I am curious as to the merits of the F-18E/F/G. Seems to be alot of people pulling for it, and I'd like to know the reasoning beyond "we already have F-18s."

[PublicAnimalNo9]

In a recent exercise an F-18G "shot" down an F-22 if that help ya out

[dino_bobba_renno]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

We should just buy the damn Raptors then, at least they have two engines.

Don't think we're allowed. Although that would be a lovely turn of events.

Doesn't matter if we are allowed, the F-22 project is shelved. They were too expensive.

/irony

Ahh shoot. Maybe we could hit the US up and see if they have any used ones with a few dents in them that they want to get rid of. Seems to have worked for the subs we bought

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I have to admit I am curious as to the merits of the F-18E/F/G. Seems to be alot of people pulling for it, and I'd like to know the reasoning beyond "we already have F-18s."

I'm no military expert but from what other people have said the F-18 and the Super Hornet are completely different weapon platforms. They look the same but thats where the similarity ends (again, from what I've heard). The Super Hornets are much bigger so there isn't any savings in terms of parts either.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

No Bart, it's not always about you.

Dude.

andyt andyt:

It was some of our Canadian military experts.

If they are in the military then the problem is that they don't want to embarrass the brass who supported this thing.

I'll say, when the plan started for the F-22 and the F-35 I was excited about the F-22 and tepid about the Jack-of-all-trades F-35.

The 35 promises to do too much and like a Jack of all trades it will be the Jack of all missions and the Master of None.

I'm happy to see it cancelled. I'd rather see a run of F-18's and A-10's for now and come back to the One Fighter to Bind Them All in another decade maybe.

[Shadow_Flanker]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I have to admit I am curious as to the merits of the F-18E/F/G. Seems to be alot of people pulling for it, and I'd like to know the reasoning beyond "we already have F-18s."

The Super Hornet is primarily a strike aircraft, and can also serve as a refueling tanker, and electronic warfare plane. Just as dino_bobba_renno mentioned, the only thing the regular Hornet and Super Hornet have in common is that they look very much the same. The Super Hornet is by and large a whole new plane; engines, radar, avionics, airframe, and capabilities.

The RCS (Radar Cross Section) of the Super Hornet has been reduced, mainly in the front and rear, thanks to some stealth like features.

There are only two users of the Super Hornet; USN (United States Navy) and the RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force). The U.S. Marine Corps has flat out refused to fly the aircraft, and the U.S. Air Force has been advised by the gov to have the aircraft in its inventory, though the USAF still doesn't operate the SH and they have currently no intentions of purchasing it. India has rejected the SH in its fighter competition, Malaysia has also rejected the aircraft prefering the SU-30MKM.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

weaselways weaselways:

Do the same thing that Auz has done, go out and buy Super Hornets. Our Air Force is familar with the Hornet, its two engine and while not 5th generation its has the electronics and profile to be 4.5. Buying 65 of them and DND will come in under budget.

We would need and can probably afford more than 65 aircraft. If we end up going for SuperHornets, the procurement should be for at least 100, if not 120 of them. It's about time we expanded the RCAF's size.

-J.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

It was some of our Canadian military experts.

If they are in the military then the problem is that they don't want to embarrass the brass who supported this thing.

I'll say, when the plan started for the F-22 and the F-35 I was excited about the F-22 and tepid about the Jack-of-all-trades F-35.

The 35 promises to do too much and like a Jack of all trades it will be the Jack of all missions and the Master of None.

I'm happy to see it cancelled. I'd rather see a run of F-18's and A-10's for now and come back to the One Fighter to Bind Them All in another decade maybe.

I should have been more clear - CKA military experts who said we just have to have the F-35, that OZ was crazy to buy the superhornets and that the projected price overruns (which were much less at the time) came from leftie knownothings who always want to criticize the military. The usual way a story like this progresses. Just as with Astan - first people advocating getting out of Astan didn't know anything, just wanted to cut and run and were in league with "Taliban Jack." Now we've cut and run you don't hear that bullshit anymore.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

Define 'cut and run' Andy. We did our time, left when we said we left. There are some staying behind to help the Afghan forces like we said we would. Canada did it's part and more, losing many fine men and women during that mission. Did we pack up and 'run' after every casualty like some countries? No. Even the Americans acknowledged the fact that we had the toughest job there. We're probably one of the few nations in that coalition that can leave that backwards country with our heads held high.

-J.

[andyt]

When the Libs or NDP wanted to get out of Astan, the Reformacons accused them of wanting to cut and run. So it's your guys' definition, not mine. Nobody in their right mind can claim that the job in Astan is finished or that we accomplished our goals. So if we'd packed up and run earlier, we'd have less dead soldiers for exactly the same result. Is there some magic number of dead before it's not cut and running.

We should have left as soon as the US took it's eye off the ball and decided they really needed to invade Iraq instead of persuing Al Qaedea and Bin Laden in Astan. That's when us being there no longer had a purpose except to prove to others how tough we are. I don't think that was worth it.

I mean you either do the job or you get defeated. Or, you're smart enough to not start an impossible job in the first place. Our soldiers can hold their heads high that they were brave. No doubt the soldiers of other countries, if they had been forced by their leaders to do what our did would also have acquitted themselves well, despite what you want to insinuate about them. But to say we were brave but didn't accomplish anything, is that really worth it?

[gonavy47]

Gotta say it; Sukhoi 35. Far superior to anything out there, longer range (4000km), more missles (12), two engines, more manuverable, faster (2400kmh), CHEAPER $60 mil.,better radar (not dependant on AWACS).
Not as stealthy as an F35, but 1000kph faster.

[Canadian_Mind]

gonavy47 gonavy47:

Gotta say it; Sukhoi 35. Far superior to anything out there, longer range (4000km), more missles (12), two engines, more manuverable, faster (2400kmh), CHEAPER $60 mil.,better radar (not dependant on AWACS).
Not as stealthy as an F35, but 1000kph faster.

Glad I'm not the only one who looked at what the Russians got and asked "what if?".

On paper the Pak Fa is supposed to be better in every catagory than the Su-35. And it's a damn fine looking aircraft to boot.



Took it from this article, a very interesting, but detailed read: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html