[uwish]

again false. Engines are included. Nothing to see there.

[peck420]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Keep in mind whatever we buy will be the pointy end of the air force for the next 30 to 40 years.

Who knows what conflicts we could end up in that far into the future.

This is a moot point.

Canada will be in no position to project power or even defend our own airspace now with 65 fighters, let alone in the future.

Doesn't matter how high tech they are.

It is a simple numbers game. Any country that theoretically could attack Canada will have such an overwhelming number of aircraft that we are screwed.

So if we are not going to ramp up our airforce to something that has enough offence to deter attack, we should buy enough fighters to at least provide a credable defence.

We can't achieve that by spending between 16B and 35B on 65 F-35's.

If we go for Super Hornets or (god forbid) a non American 4th gen airframe, we could afford around 300 for the same 16B to 35B. That would at least give us a decent defense.

The F-35's (as of today) are a complete waste for Canada.

[uwish]

hum Australia bought 24 super hornets for $3B AU ((http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... jsf-02898/)which isn't much of deal. In facts that $125M per unit, which is more than the F-35 buy about $25M per unit.

So, sure throw in dollar cost averaging and lets say we get a 'deal' the cost wouldn't be much less. In fact, the training and 10 year support contract for those 24 super hornets for the Australians is $6.0B AU for...24 jets!

When you look at it like that our deal is far better, and that $16B isn't just the price of the jets, that is their combined total maintenance over their lifetime. And, BTW our current fleet of hornets cost more than that in inflation adjusted dollars!

I do say tho, I want to see more than 65 units, but even if we went to the super hornet the number would not go past 100 for the same price.

[EyeBrock]

uwish uwish:

hum Australia bought 24 super hornets for $3B AU ((http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... jsf-02898/)which isn't much of deal. In facts that $125M per unit, which is more than the F-35 buy about $25M per unit.

So, sure throw in dollar cost averaging and lets say we get a 'deal' the cost wouldn't be much less. In fact, the training and 10 year support contract for those 24 super hornets for the Australians is $6.0B AU for...24 jets!

When you look at it like that our deal is far better, and that $16B isn't just the price of the jets, that is their combined total maintenance over their lifetime. And, BTW our current fleet of hornets cost more than that in inflation adjusted dollars!

I do say tho, I want to see more than 65 units, but even if we went to the super hornet the number would not go past 100 for the same price.

Also, don't forget that the Aussies bought the Super Hornet as an interim aircraft. They have also ordered F35's.

[peck420]

Do you think the F-35's will actually cost 16B? The Pentagon doesn't think so.

Which is why my personal recomendtion is Su-30MKK's from India.

Not only do they sell you planes, they are far more willing to sell you the codes and the designs to let you build your own. It would boost our economy and provide us what we need.

As for the AU purchase, keep in mind that we would get them for cheaper as some parts are built in Canada. Australia did not have that edge. They are buying the complete system, plane, parts, maintainence. We just need the plane and some parts.

Edit to add:

I have also stated that we should stay in the F-35 program. Just don't buy yet. Wait until there is an actual 100% finished product to test, and to price.

[BartSimpson]

Buying the Sukhoi is a silly idea because when you need tech support you'll have to call India.

[peck420]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Buying the Sukhoi is a silly idea because when you need tech support you'll have to call India.

If we buy American, tech support calls will still go to India...just ask Dell.

[uwish]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

uwish uwish:

hum Australia bought 24 super hornets for $3B AU ((http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... jsf-02898/)which isn't much of deal. In facts that $125M per unit, which is more than the F-35 buy about $25M per unit.

So, sure throw in dollar cost averaging and lets say we get a 'deal' the cost wouldn't be much less. In fact, the training and 10 year support contract for those 24 super hornets for the Australians is $6.0B AU for...24 jets!

When you look at it like that our deal is far better, and that $16B isn't just the price of the jets, that is their combined total maintenance over their lifetime. And, BTW our current fleet of hornets cost more than that in inflation adjusted dollars!

I do say tho, I want to see more than 65 units, but even if we went to the super hornet the number would not go past 100 for the same price.

Also, don't forget that the Aussies bought the Super Hornet as an interim aircraft. They have also ordered F35's.

oh I know they did, I was merely commenting on the economics and no, actually when you get a new jet, you have to buy all the supporting equipment with it. So they really don't cut you a break on those items. And even though it's still a hornet, its just different enough to need all new ground support equipment, simulators, have different engines etc etc so the support base of the current hornet doesn't just map over to the super hornets. Which is why those 24 auzie jets cost so much and why the maintenance and training cost of the F-35 are as high as the cost of the jets themselves.

[Dragon-Dancer]

I say we skip this whole manned military flight thing and just skip to drones. They come in all sorts of varieties, and all you need is a 15 year old kid with a joystick to run one from the safety of his own home. It's cheep and easy I say

[uwish]

they gave that reason when they scrapped the Arrow for the bomarc missile in the late 50's! We are close to that capability but not yet.

[saturn_656]

uwish uwish:

they gave that reason when they scrapped the Arrow for the bomarc missile in the late 50's! We are close to that capability but not yet.

The BOMARC was a SAM, UCAV's are an entirely different animal.

On the topic of the BOMARC, it was one of the most ludicrous Canadian military procurements.

Ever.

[saturn_656]

peck420 peck420:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Keep in mind whatever we buy will be the pointy end of the air force for the next 30 to 40 years.

Who knows what conflicts we could end up in that far into the future.

This is a moot point.

Canada will be in no position to project power or even defend our own airspace now with 65 fighters, let alone in the future.

Doesn't matter how high tech they are.

It is a simple numbers game. Any country that theoretically could attack Canada will have such an overwhelming number of aircraft that we are screwed.

So if we are not going to ramp up our airforce to something that has enough offence to deter attack, we should buy enough fighters to at least provide a credable defence.

We can't achieve that by spending between 16B and 35B on 65 F-35's.

If we go for Super Hornets or (god forbid) a non American 4th gen airframe, we could afford around 300 for the same 16B to 35B. That would at least give us a decent defense.

The F-35's (as of today) are a complete waste for Canada.

Even with a reduced fighter force, no non allied country has the capability to challenge our air force on its own turf.

But I agree that 65 F-35's doesn't represent a formidable fighter force, the solution is to buy more. 100 would be a good start.

[bootlegga]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

What enemies are the talking heads anticipating that we are going to face that require this level of technology(F-35)? Most of the conflicts Canada has taken part in, have been against enemies with limited technology where the abilities of the Hornet and Super Hornet far exceed anything the enemy can come up with.

That's what's lost on many proponents of the F-35. Look at where we've used the CF-18: Gulf War 1 (Iraq), Kosovo, and now Libya. Of them, only Iraq really had much of a modern air defence system, and it was flattened by the USAF in about 24 hours.

Unless the West is planning a war against Japan or China or Russia in the next generation, these planes will be never be used to their full potential.

[EyeBrock]

bootlegga bootlegga:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

What enemies are the talking heads anticipating that we are going to face that require this level of technology(F-35)? Most of the conflicts Canada has taken part in, have been against enemies with limited technology where the abilities of the Hornet and Super Hornet far exceed anything the enemy can come up with.

That's what's lost on many proponents of the F-35. Look at where we've used the CF-18: Gulf War 1 (Iraq), Kosovo, and now Libya. Of them, only Iraq really had much of a modern air defence system, and it was flattened by the USAF in about 24 hours.

Unless the West is planning a war against Japan or China or Russia in the next generation, these planes will be never be used to their full potential.

And as long as you can both confidently predict the conflicts Canada will be engaged in during the next 30-40 years you have a point. Otherwise...

[uwish]

I thought this was really about getting the best kit available when the time came to buy. I don't see anything wrong with this bird, it's one of the best combat AC available. Would I like to see more of them? yup but from an air superiority perspective it could be argued you can do the job with 65 of this gen fighter compared to double needed from older generations.