[Regina]

Not going to happen. Way too far from what we use now and totally foreign systems.

[saturn_656]

llama66 llama66:

I'd like to see the Gripen or the Rafale for the Airforce.

According to a good chunk of the F-35 critics the Gripen is no good for us either (one engine). Problem with the Rafale is that French haven't taken the time to integrate the common NATO armaments (AMRAAM, Sidewinder, etc), we'd have to foot the bill for that or dump our current inventory and buy French weapons.

Myself I'm partial to the Typhoon as an alternative.

[saturn_656]

Regina Regina:

Not going to happen. Way too far from what we use now and totally foreign systems.

The more I think about it, the less I think the plane we buy matters. F-35, Rafale, Cessna 185, 65 planes is far too few to sustain a viable combat force over the long term and we will have no depth at all. Normal attrition will be a serious concern never mind potential combat losses. As is stands now we can only contribute token amounts of airpower to international missions, the six or seven Hornets we sent to Libya was not impressive and a far cry from the 25 to 30 Hornets we sent to the Gulf War.

[Regina]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Regina Regina:

Not going to happen. Way too far from what we use now and totally foreign systems.

The more I think about it, the less I think the plane we buy matters. F-35, Rafale, Cessna 185, 65 planes is far too few to sustain a viable combat force over the long term and we will have no depth at all. Normal attrition will be a serious concern never mind potential combat losses. As is stands now we can only contribute token amounts of airpower to international missions, the six or seven Hornets we sent to Libya was not impressive and a far cry from the 25 to 30 Hornets we sent to the Gulf War.

I'd agree with that. Think we purchase about 125 Hornets back in the day but most were sitting idle till they needed parts or replacements. Largest requirement will be the ability to fully integrate with other NATO countries in combat, which the current Hornets are limited. I'm still partial to the new Hornet for the next 25+ years.

[Vamp018]

I'll make Canada a deal. You buy 1 Ford Class Carrier and will give your Nation 150 Free Super Hornets E,F and toss in a few G's. If you give us Quebec will give you the F35's free as a bonus .

In all honesty although, If I was the President, Canada would get the Super Hornets with the F35's as a package.

[saturn_656]

Regina Regina:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Regina Regina:

Not going to happen. Way too far from what we use now and totally foreign systems.

The more I think about it, the less I think the plane we buy matters. F-35, Rafale, Cessna 185, 65 planes is far too few to sustain a viable combat force over the long term and we will have no depth at all. Normal attrition will be a serious concern never mind potential combat losses. As is stands now we can only contribute token amounts of airpower to international missions, the six or seven Hornets we sent to Libya was not impressive and a far cry from the 25 to 30 Hornets we sent to the Gulf War.

I'd agree with that. Think we purchase about 125 Hornets back in the day but most were sitting idle till they needed parts or replacements. Largest requirement will be the ability to fully integrate with other NATO countries in combat, which the current Hornets are limited. I'm still partial to the new Hornet for the next 25+ years.

Provided we don't need to participate in any sort of major conflict it'll do the job.

[Regina]

I always loved the F16 and I know they still have current upgrades and are sold around the world. They are less expensive to purchase and operate but Canada has this hang up about having twin engine fighters.

[Canadian_Mind]

Regina Regina:

I always loved the F16 and I know they still have current upgrades and are sold around the world. They are less expensive to purchase and operate but Canada has this hang up about having twin engine fighters.

Aren't F-16s and F-18s par for the course? the lone difference being the engines and the slight performance differences from them?

[saturn_656]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Regina Regina:

I always loved the F16 and I know they still have current upgrades and are sold around the world. They are less expensive to purchase and operate but Canada has this hang up about having twin engine fighters.

Aren't F-16s and F-18s par for the course? the lone difference being the engines and the slight performance differences from them?

They were both meant to be an affordable companion to the F-14/F-15.

Lockheed isn't going to offer the F-16 though, they want to sell us their "new and shiny".

[Vamp018]

F16 or F35 both Lockheed and made in Texas. Hummmmmmmm butter up the TX Gov. Perry. He has weight with the US House as the most Senior Gov. in the US. TX Senator's are very Pro-Canadian minded. Texas want your Canadian Tax Dollars and Oil!!!

[Regina]

Money talks. If it's for sale it can be bought.

[saturn_656]

Regina Regina:

Money talks. If it's for sale it can be bought.

I'm sure we could buy it, we'd likely have to sole source it though because Lockheed wouldn't want it to be picked over its new bird in a competition.

According to F-35 detractors, sole sourcing is bad.

[Regina]

I'm just saying that I like it but we seem to think we need a twin engine fighter so the F16 is off the table. The F16 is still be sold around the world with all the usual guarantee of parts so I wouldn't be worried about that threat. Avionics and weapons are the upgrades that seem to be the road block decades down the road. I'm not sure why it's such a big deal to change over avionics but it seems that it is. The L39 trainer fighter I flew was totally converted to North American avionics and although weapon systems were removed it all fit fine.

[ShepherdsDog]

Regina Regina:

I always loved the F16 and I know they still have current upgrades and are sold around the world. They are less expensive to purchase and operate but Canada has this hang up about having twin engine fighters.

....the Taiwanese sure liked crashing them.

[saturn_656]

Regina Regina:

I'm just saying that I like it but we seem to think we need a twin engine fighter so the F16 is off the table. The F16 is still be sold around the world with all the usual guarantee of parts so I wouldn't be worried about that threat. Avionics and weapons are the upgrades that seem to be the road block decades down the road. I'm not sure why it's such a big deal to change over avionics but it seems that it is. The L39 trainer fighter I flew was totally converted to North American avionics and although weapon systems were removed it all fit fine.

The hang up is that the F-16 is at the end of its development. It didn't get the rebuild that the Hornet got with the Super variant and production is wrapping up in the next few years.

The primary operator (USAF) is in the process of retiring it, therefore the Americans are not going to finance any further upgrades and it will become obsolete rather quickly when compared to the Rafale, Typhoon, SH, or Gripen.

We missed the Falcon boat, time to buy would have been in the 80's but back then only the A variant was available and it was very much inferior to the F/A-18.