[BeaverFever]

Yeah, the US did decide to reallocate assets away from F-22 in favour of the F-35 and that has generated alot of anti-F35 propaganda but it doesn't change the fact that the F35 can only go mach 1.2, can only carry 4 air-air missiles and 2000 lb air-ground payload while maintaining its "stealthy" characteristics. That gives it a very narrow mission envelope. Anything extra will be carried externally, completely nullifying its stealth capability and stealth capabilities are over-rated anyway.

[saturn_656]

SigPig SigPig:

I have said it before, for the money to capability ratio the Eurofighter is the best plane out there hands down. The JSF is an overpriced underperforming aircraft that we can't afford to get in sufficient numbers.

Not that we could afford to buy the Typhoon in sufficent numbers either. The UK is paying what, 70 million POUNDS per plane, and that is what in Canadian dollars... 150 million per plane?

At that price we can buy how many? 30? 40?

[SigPig]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Not that we could afford to buy the Typhoon in sufficent numbers either. The UK is paying what, 70 million POUNDS per plane, and that is what in Canadian dollars... 150 million per plane?

At that price we can buy how many? 30? 40?

That price is not only based on development cost as well, but will also surely come down by the time Canada is ready to buy which is nearly 10 years from now.

[saturn_656]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Prices for the Typhoon will go down over the next 5-10 years.

Both Wikipedia and GS are wrong regarding the F-22. It has a cruising speed of mach 1.8 (which is faster than the JSF's overall top speed), and a top speed of mach 2.42. I dunno what the altitude figures are.

You are right regarding a lack of enemy states flying F-15s. But several fly Mig - 29 and SU - 27 series of aircraft. Both of which could outnumber and overwhelm a fleet of JSFs simply because once any JSFs in the air run out of munitions the Mig - 29s and SU - 27s can catch up to the JSF, and if they don't use missles, outmanuever the thing in a dogfight.

Again, I'm no expert on aircraft or stealth, but the ass end of a JSF has alot of edges, especially in and around the engine. In addition to that, the engine of the JSF is a fucking hot bastard, and I doubt there are systems in place to cool emissions. Many Russian aircraft have Infa-red detecting equipment, so while they can't shoot it down with radar-based missles, they can certinly track the damn thing when it turns tail and runs.

Western aircraft also have IRSTs (they are not unique to Russian fighters), why do you presume a force of F-35's would deplete their munitions so ineffectively as to not stop a flight of 70's era Soviet fighters?

[saturn_656]

SigPig SigPig:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Not that we could afford to buy the Typhoon in sufficent numbers either. The UK is paying what, 70 million POUNDS per plane, and that is what in Canadian dollars... 150 million per plane?

At that price we can buy how many? 30? 40?

That price is not only based on development cost as well, but will also surely come down by the time Canada is ready to buy which is nearly 10 years from now.

Not necessarily, F-15's and F-16's being sold today cost much more than their A variants did.

[ridenrain]

I'm deinately leary of the Typhoon expecially since the Austrailians went with the Super Hornets instead. If we need parts that we can't make ourselves, we need to be close to the supply and that's why I like the US products.

[saturn_656]

ridenrain ridenrain:

I'm deinately leary of the Typhoon expecially since the Austrailians went with the Super Hornets instead. If we need parts that we can't make ourselves, we need to be close to the supply and that's why I like the US products.

The Super Hornet is the aircraft I think we should be buying.

[Canadian_Mind]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Western aircraft also have IRSTs (they are not unique to Russian fighters), why do you presume a force of F-35's would deplete their munitions so ineffectively as to not stop a flight of 70's era Soviet fighters?

Numbers. If we buy 65 of the things, we're staring down over 1000 Russian fighters, plus who knows how many chiniese fighters. Munitions will be depleted in the event of conflict, which is ultimately what we procure equipment for.

Ragrarding modern F-15s and 16s costing more today than they did when thye were introduced int he 70s and 80s respectively, the actual numerical value of the aircraft have gone up due to inflation, but taking inflation into account you'll find the F-15s and F-16s produced and sold today cost less than whent he initial blocks of F-15s and F-16s were first put into production.

From what I recall, the Australians bought the F-18s as a stop-gap until they could either purchase F-35s, or F-22s (what they want).

Regardless, I think it would be nice to see a competition between F-18E/F, F-15E (and the new "stealthy" variant), F-35, Eurofighter, and Rafale. If possible throw the F-22 into the mix. In every case having the licence to domestically manufacture parts over the life of the aircraft should be a part of the contract, and any manfacture that isn't wiling to give that up shoudl be disqualified.

[saturn_656]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Numbers. If we buy 65 of the things, we're staring down over 1000 Russian fighters, plus who knows how many chiniese fighters. Munitions will be depleted in the event of conflict, which is ultimately what we procure equipment for.

We will never procure ANY fighter in sufficent numbers to stop the Russian or Chinese air forces.

$1:

Ragrarding modern F-15s and 16s costing more today than they did when thye were introduced int he 70s and 80s respectively, the actual numerical value of the aircraft have gone up due to inflation, but taking inflation into account you'll find the F-15s and F-16s produced and sold today cost less than whent he initial blocks of F-15s and F-16s were first put into production.

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheet ... asp?id=103

Unit cost: F-16A/B , $14.6 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars); F-16C/D,$18.8 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)

Unit Cost: F-15A/B models - $27.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars);F-15C/D models - $29.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)

$1:

From what I recall, the Australians bought the F-18s as a stop-gap until they could either purchase F-35s, or F-22s (what they want).

Regardless, I think it would be nice to see a competition between F-18E/F, F-15E (and the new "stealthy" variant), F-35, Eurofighter, and Rafale. If possible throw the F-22 into the mix. In every case having the licence to domestically manufacture parts over the life of the aircraft should be a part of the contract, and any manfacture that isn't wiling to give that up shoudl be disqualified.

You want to build the planes in Canada?

[Canadian_Mind]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

We will never procure ANY fighter in sufficent numbers to stop the Russian or Chinese air forces.

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheet ... asp?id=103

Unit cost: F-16A/B , $14.6 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars); F-16C/D,$18.8 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)

Unit Cost: F-15A/B models - $27.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars);F-15C/D models - $29.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)

You want to build the planes in Canada?

250, or even the original 144 F-18's we bought, is a hell of alot bigger speedbump for the Russians and Chiniese than 65.

Those look like what the F-15s (and their respective models), and F-16s (and there respective models) cost in 1998 dollars if they were to have been purchased at that time. Where does it compare the initial sale price of the F-15s and F-16s to what they would cost today?

And no I didn't say build the planes in Canada, I said to have a licence agreement for us to produce replacement parts over the life of the aircraft.

[saturn_656]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

250, or even the original 144 F-18's we bought, is a hell of alot bigger speedbump for the Russians and Chiniese than 65.

I won't argue that 65 is enough (because I don't think it is) but I can't see the government ponying up the cash for more than 80 of anything.

We will never be in the same league as the Russians or Chinese, as bad as that sounds.

$1:

Those look like what the F-15s (and their respective models), and F-16s (and there respective models) cost in 1998 dollars if they were to have been purchased at that time. Where does it compare the initial sale price of the F-15s and F-16s to what they would cost today?

Well what do the F-15E variants cost today?

Estimate for the F-15K the Koreans bought was 100 million per unit. The F-16 E/F the UAE bought were in the ballpark of 80 million per plane.

Much higher yes?

$1:

And no I didn't say build the planes in Canada, I said to have a licence agreement for us to produce replacement parts over the life of the aircraft.

Sure why not.

[Canadian_Mind]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I won't argue that 65 is enough (because I don't think it is) but I can't see the government ponying up the cash for more than 80 of anything.

We will never be in the same league as the Russians or Chinese, as bad as that sounds.

Well what do the F-15E variants cost today?

Estimate for the F-15K the Koreans bought was 100 million per unit. The F-16 E/F the UAE bought were in the ballpark of 80 million per plane.

Much higher yes?

No we will never be in the same league as the Chiniese, and probably never the Russians either (too small), but I do believe we should have enough of a force that the bloody nose we'd leave while going down would be enough of a deterrent for them to not want to openly wage war.

And not buying more than 80 of anything is just sad, as is the rate of force decline in this country. At one point we had over 600 fighter jets and that was considered adequate for our needs. That dropped to 250, which then dropped to 140, and with further cuts down to 80. Now the gov only wants to get 65. Thats not even enough for two combat squadrons plus a training squadron. As it is with the 80 we have operational they have trouble keeping both squadrons and the training squadron up and running.

This website has the F-15 costing 48 million for all variants from A-D over the life of the program, and 55 million for the F-15E, but 100 million for export cutomers: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-specs.htm

Might explain some of the price discrepencies.

[EyeBrock]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

SigPig SigPig:

I have said it before, for the money to capability ratio the Eurofighter is the best plane out there hands down. The JSF is an overpriced underperforming aircraft that we can't afford to get in sufficient numbers.

Not that we could afford to buy the Typhoon in sufficent numbers either. The UK is paying what, 70 million POUNDS per plane, and that is what in Canadian dollars... 150 million per plane?

At that price we can buy how many? 30? 40?

I think we'd be better buying from the US than the UK.

[saturn_656]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

SigPig SigPig:

I have said it before, for the money to capability ratio the Eurofighter is the best plane out there hands down. The JSF is an overpriced underperforming aircraft that we can't afford to get in sufficient numbers.

Not that we could afford to buy the Typhoon in sufficent numbers either. The UK is paying what, 70 million POUNDS per plane, and that is what in Canadian dollars... 150 million per plane?

At that price we can buy how many? 30? 40?

I think we'd be better buying from the US than the UK.

Any specific reason why?

[Winnipegger]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I think we'd be better buying from the US than the UK.

Why? The US economy is going down. Today their debt stands at $11,733,077,977,176.21 or simply $11.7 trillion. With a population of 306,789,523 that works out to $38,244.72 per person for every man, woman, and child; including senior citizens, newborn babies, the infirmed, etc. Canada's federal debt is $457.637 billion and the population is 33,592,686 so that works out to $13,623.11 per person. Exchange rate is 0.9130 so the US per capita federal debt is 3 times as great as Canada's; and the US debt is growing at $3.92 billion per day. Although I criticise the Conservative government for getting us back into deficit, one way or another we will get out relatively soon. If they don't, they will be voted out so that the Liberals will. As I said, one way or the other we will return to debt payments. However, the US debt is so large and their deficit so deep, I don't see how they are going to get out of it.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/

The financial crisis in the US last year was due to the fact they just ran out of money. You could blame a portion of the problem on consumer debt, but the real issue is the federal debt. When the banks were having trouble lending enough money to fund the federal deficit, they changed laws. The banks could continue to lend money to the federal government, but their entire banking system collapsed. The junk mortgage crisis was just the tip of the iceberg. They effectively nationalized their banking system to prevent complete financial collapse, but still haven't fixed the root problem. They still haven't eliminated their deficit. Cutting government spending is not easy; Canada did it in 1994, and it hurt. We had to cut spending in areas that were considered politically sacred, what the federal government was there for. The US has different priorities, but they will also have to cut deeply in the areas they consider more important to their federal government. Whatever they think can't be cut, they will have to cut first. It will hurt, but if they don't, their economy will only get worse and their entire financial system will get worse. But even though they have elected a new president, from the opposite party, they still haven't been able to balance the budget. They will have to hurt more before they are forced to accept that they must balance their budget. Their economy will get a lot worse before it gets better.

So why do you think they are a reliable supplier?