[DerbyX]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

What the hell sort of question is that. During the Cold War they bought 130 F-18, they aren't in the market for 180 F-18Es

I'm simply extrapolating the money spent to an equivalent amount. The F18Es are about 1/3 the price with a cheaper maintenance cost.

That is why I said "assuming the money spent was static". If we commit to the same amount we could get 3X as many fighters and that is an important factor.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Unsound Unsound:

I agree that governments make do bad decisions, but as I said, in cases like this I feel like we really should trust the people who are qualified and who have put years of research into this. The more partisan politics that surrounds it the more likely they are to make bad decisions.

Well, sure - the mandrines should know a thing or two. However I would say top decisions have to pass the "sniff test". The Canadian army can really only deploy something like 7,000 troops - do you want their air support to weigh in at $16 billion? A clearer picture of what the Canadian niche would be would help.

[saturn_656]

$1:

Don't you think Canada would be better served by an aircraft we can afford to field in much greater numbers?

Please note the difference between what we can "afford"... and what we are "willing to pay".

We sure as hell can afford to field the F-35 is larger numbers... but there is no will to pony up the required funds.

No big surprise there.

[DerbyX]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

Don't you think Canada would be better served by an aircraft we can afford to field in much greater numbers?

Please note the difference between what we can "afford"... and what we are "willing to pay".

We sure as hell can afford to field the F-35 is larger numbers... but there is no will to pony up the required funds.

No big surprise there.

Sorry but "afford" and "willing to pay" means about the same, perhaps less in your example. We are running a deficit therefore we cannot afford to purchase any new fighters.

Willing to pay is only supported by politicians who will never actually face the consequences of spending money the don't have.

The salient point still is: Can we field a better and more effective air force with a cheaper fighter? Regardless of how much money you think we can spend the question will still remain are we better served by a larger more affordable airforce then a smaller more expensive one?

[saturn_656]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Sorry but "afford" and "willing to pay" means about the same, perhaps less in your example. We are running a deficit therefore we cannot afford to purchase any new fighters.

Despite the country running a deficit, we continue to spend money in areas much less worthy of funding than National Defence.

$1:

The salient point still is: Can we field a better and more effective air force with a cheaper fighter? Regardless of how much money you think we can spend the question will still remain are we better served by a larger more affordable airforce then a smaller more expensive one?

There is no guarantee that if a cheaper aircraft had been chosen, that it would have translated into more airframes.

If given the option, I'd take 65 F-35's over 65 of any other competing jet.

[Gunnair]

tritium tritium:

Why would Canada need fighters anyhow, it's not like we have anything to defend.

Yeah we get it. You don't like Canada.

[DerbyX]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Despite the country running a deficit, we continue to spend money in areas much less worthy of funding than National Defence.

Like health care? I don't dispute defence spending. I'm a pragmatist. I'm one of the few people on here not crying about my taxes. I don't dispute the money spent on the fighters. I just want the best deal and the best air craft.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

There is no guarantee that if a cheaper aircraft had been chosen, that it would have translated into more airframes.

If given the option, I'd take 65 F-35's over 65 of any other competing jet.

Correct. We can't be sure it'll translate into more air craft but we can know it'll either be more fighters or less money. Less money means more money to buy things like more ships.

Lets expand on your last point. You'll take 65 F35s over 65 other fighters. What if the cost of those other fighters allowed us to purchase more frigates or more subs?

You can't just compare the purchase of 65 F35s to the assumption a "lesser" aircraft purchase will be the same amount.

Lets assume my theory is correct for a moment. Would 65 F35s be better then 180 F18Es?

[Gunnair]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Oh, yeah - don't forget, Ottawa bought the CF-5 at one point. I was a teenager at the time and the main stream media said it was a hot fighter. The military didn't know what to do with it. Eventual it was regulated to a reconnaise role, fitted with a camera.

$1:

Selected originally to provide a tactical support role based in Canada, the CF-5 was also committed to NATO's northern flank to act a rapid-deployment force. However, the role for the CF-5 throughout its service with the RCAF was changed frequently and eventually, the diminutive fighter would serve as a light attack strike fighter, reconnaissance platform and trainer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CF-5

Would you happen to have a link where the military stated that it didn't know what to do with it or could that be considered some loose talk on your part?

[Bruce_the_vii]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Oh, yeah - don't forget, Ottawa bought the CF-5 at one point. I was a teenager at the time and the main stream media said it was a hot fighter. The military didn't know what to do with it. Eventual it was regulated to a reconnaise role, fitted with a camera.

Would you happen to have a link where the military stated that it didn't know what to do with it or could that be considered some loose talk on your part?

Er, the CF-5, as someone posted, was a cheap fighter for third world countries. It was a 1,200 mile an hour jet in the era of 1,800 mph machines. It had a limited range and a limited payload. In the USA it was regulated to a trainer role. However, please note, it was assembled in Montreal. It was a generation before the F-18. As a teenager I had no idea that it was that bad, the media appauded it as "versatile".

Your quote is correct, but it's polite language. The CF-5 was half the price and half the air plane of the machines of it's time.

[Canadian_Mind]

Huh, I'd be adding to Derby's rep points right about now, but I can't find the button.

Derby, would you support the purchase of 180 F-18Es if given the option?

[Gunnair]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Oh, yeah - don't forget, Ottawa bought the CF-5 at one point. I was a teenager at the time and the main stream media said it was a hot fighter. The military didn't know what to do with it. Eventual it was regulated to a reconnaise role, fitted with a camera.

Would you happen to have a link where the military stated that it didn't know what to do with it or could that be considered some loose talk on your part?

Er, the CF-5, as someone posted, was a cheap fighter for third world countries. It was a 1,200 mile an hour jet in the era of 1,800 mph machines. It had a limited range and a limited payload. In the USA it was regulated to a trainer role. However, please note, it was assembled in Montreal. It was a generation before the F-18. As a teenager I had no idea that it was that bad, the media appauded it as "versatile".

I'll take that as a no, you don't have a link where the military states it didn't know what to do with it.

It may come as a surprise to you that the military will adapt it's platforms to the changing times and technology. Mackenzie class DDE's built in the early to mid 60s and considered cadillacs of ASW were relegated to training roles in the early 80s - well within their life expectancy.

The CF 5 may not have been an ideal airframe, but it wasn't bought by a military that had no idea what to do to it.

You may want to stick about talking immigration.

[DerbyX]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Huh, I'd be adding to Derby's rep points right about now, but I can't find the button.

Derby, would you support the purchase of 180 F-18Es if given the option?

Absolutely. In many (many) debates with Eyebrock I have repeatedly said I do not dispute the money being spent. I simply think we would be better served with a much larger air force of a fighter I don't think is so inferior then some think.

In fact I support a hard and fast military premium kinda like the Ontario health care premium to a dedicated military fund that can be used directly by military officers.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Huh! I don't actually think you'd get anything out of the USA military-industrial complex on the cheap. Everyone in the pipeline gets a cut of the action, including the sheetmetal workers.

[Gunnair]

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Iggy's plan is to defund the CF and trust everyone in the world. Hey, it works for Costa Rica, right?

Iggy's a warhawk. He is the most military minded Liberal in recent memory. He has no intention of defunding the military. Clearly he is responding to the polls and public support but he isn't against defence spending.

I've have always wanted your opinion on this:

Assuming the money spent on the F35 is static. What is better? 65 F35s or 180 F18Es? The super hornet can be produced here on license and is 1/3 the price and won't reduce the airforce to a strength equal to a single carrier wing.

Don't you think Canada would be better served by an aircraft we can afford to field in much greater numbers?

One of the issues in buying the F 18E is the fact that the airframe, though new is still a 30 year old design. I would submit that this will remain as a great export airframe to middle powers (like ourselves) and below. The F 35 is of course brand new technology which will be the torch bearer for the next 30 years or so. That being said, I'm not a fan of the purchase until we see what it does. New platforms aren't always the best. The Seawolf class SSN, the Avenger Class MCM, and the Littoral Class Combat Ship are examples of platforms that have either not worked out well, or took a lot of effort to get the bugs out.

[DerbyX]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Huh! I don't actually think you'd get anything out of the USA military-industrial complex on the cheap. Everyone in the pipeline gets a cut of the action, including the sheetmetal workers.

Well actually no. Canada's LAVIIIs were built under contract in London so we recouped a significant amount of money that way.

Macdonell Douglas has been looking to sell its fighter and has been offering to build it in interested buyers countries. Not so with the F35. Canada will not lose out on billions if we don't buy and we have not already made billions from the deal.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -jet-deal/

The F18Es are a vastly superior deal. A cheaper fighter with "disputed" less capability. A cheaper upkeep cost. A delivery date of now rather then 4 years from now. A proven combat record rather then a question mark.

All things to consider. We got railroaded into buying the F35 and the politicos are closing doors and forming up the wagons to hide the fact.