[Bruce_the_vii]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Gunnair Gunnair:

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.

Well, it was a pretty bad decision. I've talked to former army grunts and they don't even blink an eye about how bad the CF-5 was at this time - the CF-5 is considered bad, no question.

However, thanks for noticing I post about immigration. I've worked on that file. I'm trying to be diplomatic about these military posts though.

[Gunnair]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

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.

Well, it was a pretty bad decision. I've talked to former army grunts and they don't even blink an eye about how bad the CF-5 was at this time - the CF-5 is considered bad, no question.

However, thanks for noticing I post about immigration. I've worked on that file.

Thirty years from now, an equal number of people might think Canada was idiotic to have bought a thirty year old airframe design instead of cutting edge technology.

[DerbyX]

Gunnair Gunnair:

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.

Good question. From what I've read though the F18E is a hornet in name mostly. Completely redesigned with an eye towards stealth without actual stealth. Reports say it is actually third in terms of stealth just below the F35 & F22. I think its fair to consider it at least a half gen above the original F18.

Of course cost is also an issue and you might be a tad biased for my next question.

A cheaper fighter may allow us to purchase more ships. Are we better served by a more powerful navy or a stealthy air force?

Side note: I once asked Wullu why the navy itself seemed to resists any sub purchase. He said it was mostly because the entire navy trained to kill subs that they have few people who like them. What are your thoughts about purchasing an effective submarine force for Canada?

[Bruce_the_vii]

As far as I can make out the submarines were for training NATO. The Americans don't even have conventional subs so they needed them in inventory for NATO. The media reported that the subs that Canada bought from Britain could be used for "fisheries partol". Fuck.

[DerbyX]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

As far as I can make out the submarines were for training NATO. The Americans don't even have conventional subs so they needed them in inventory for NATO. The media reported that the subs that Canada bought from Britain could be used for "fisheries partol". Fuck.

Yeah we got screwed by our "allies" the UK. Substandard navy vessels from the UK? Fuck.

However with the money we can buy top notch German U212s.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Thirty years from now, an equal number of people might think Canada was idiotic to have bought a thirty year old airframe design instead of cutting edge technology.

I see the point. Just buy the new equipment - it's all around amazing technically.

[saturn_656]

DerbyX DerbyX:

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.

The plane that represents the "best deal" may not necessarily be the "best aircraft".

I would contend that the F-35 is the best aircraft on the market for us to purchase. Are we paying a premium for this example of high technology?

You bet. I consider it money worth spending. Some don't.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

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.

The surplus funds may not even go to anything in the DND. The funds for the F-35 project did not come out of the CF's budget. It was additional money committed by the government.

$1:

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

Why assume different? The current fighter fleet stands at 80... I can't see any major expansion of the fighter force beyond that figure. Our fighter strength has been trending downward for decades.

$1:

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

Honestly? I'm not sure. I'm curious though, why do you think a F-35 costs (roughly) as much as three Super Hornets? A F-22 Raptor doesn't even cost what three Super Hornets do.

[DerbyX]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The plane that represents the "best deal" may not necessarily be the "best aircraft".

I would contend that the F-35 is the best aircraft on the market for us to purchase. Are we paying a premium for this example of high technology?

You bet. I consider it money worth spending. Some don't.

Well actually best deal means best deal for Canada which includes all aspects. Are we paying for a premium we don't need? Recall the Bomarc deal? What about the fact of developing UACVs? What about the fact that a paltry 65 aircraft means we could have it neutralized by just a few commando squads?

Think about it. We pay billions to buy and aircraft in numbers the enemy can neutralize at will.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The surplus funds may not even go to anything in the DND. The funds for the F-35 project did not come out of the CF's budget. It was additional money committed by the government.

Irrelevant. The money will either be realized in a purchase or elsewhere. Money saved on the purchase will be used elsewhere.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Why assume different? The current fighter fleet stands at 80... I can't see any major expansion of the fighter force beyond that figure. Our fighter strength has been trending downward for decades.

Only because of attrition. We have not replaced losses. That fact will not change under the F35s. Every loss will not be replaced. With cheaper aircraft that chance is diminished.

Also, 65 is a large drop from 80. Why not buy 50 F22s. Better yet 10 stealth bombers.

Get the picture?

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Honestly? I'm not sure. I'm curious though, why do you think a F-35 costs (roughly) as much as three Super Hornets? A F-22 Raptor doesn't even cost what three Super Hornets do.

From the source material already posted. F18E 60 million. F35 160 million. Not counting maintenance costs.

[Demian_164]

ive read reports that a single squadron of f22 fighters were able to defeat hundreds of other 4th generation aircraft without a single casualty in war game exercises. it is the ultimate fighter of our time. the f-35 has slight less fighting capabalities but is versatile and based on the same technology. i think 130 F18Es would be a complete waste of money, given the aircraft that countries like russia are developing through sukhoi. they could literally wipe out our entire airforce from miles away. i think the F-35 is definitely worth the money, its what i would go with

[Canadian_Mind]

you have to remember, the F-22 kill count is over a given period of time. If push came to shove, and the enemy threw 10 fighter squadrons at you across a 3000 mile border, and you only had one F-22 or one F-35 squadron in the middle, you'd lose. Not only would your F-22s/35s be overwhelmed and your base assaulted/destroyed (making the remaining F-22s/35s unable to land or take off), but your citizens would die where you were unable to respond to enemy strikes against your nation quickly enough. Not a happy scenario.

[Demian_164]

not really...what are you basing this on? it wouldnt matter if the f-22 was overwhelmed by inferior aircraft. most of them they could kill from miles away from the other's engagement range and simply fly away. it could out speed and out maneuver older aircraft and its stealth technology could protect against rader and missle targeting systems. its fuel exhaust and "in aircraft" (dont know if thats the right terms) protects it from heat seaking missle technology. plus, what makes you think they would engage them withing striking distance of their own airstrips? way too many variables. its also kind of tactically flawed to not send all of your aircraft to attack their enemy and just go around killing civilians while the enemy is putting up resitance with vastly superior aircraft

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I think it'll be important to wait until we see a direct head to head "dogfight" between the -35 and the -18. While the -35 may be 3 times the cost of the -18, if they are "killing" the -18s at a 5:1 ratio or better, then they're worth the cost.

Aside from the stealth technology though, I gotta agree with Derby that on paper so far, the -35 looks to be only marginally better performance-wise than the latest generation of -18s. Not counting the lack of powerplant redundancy. I can also tell you that the listed specs on the F-35 aren't exactly accurate. They ALWAYS hide the true performance capability until some poor saps get to be on the recieving end of a new weapon system.

Although I gotta say, Lockheed-Martin has developed some pretty nice high tech kites including the C-130J, the F-16, the F-22, the F-2, the U-2 and the C-5 Super Galaxy. Add to that Lockheed's SR-71 and the F-35 will be in pretty damn good company. And both Lockheed and Martin have been at the leading edge of aircraft design and technology since WW2 with a/c like the P-38 and B-26 respectively.

[Gunnair]

DerbyX DerbyX:

A cheaper fighter may allow us to purchase more ships. Are we better served by a more powerful navy or a stealthy air force?

Side note: I once asked Wullu why the navy itself seemed to resists any sub purchase. He said it was mostly because the entire navy trained to kill subs that they have few people who like them. What are your thoughts about purchasing an effective submarine force for Canada?

Submarines serve a couple of purposes. They keep us in an elite community which provides us information on what other countries are doing with their submarine forces and they also provide a strategic platform that is an unknown to potential enemies and or criminals. I believe we need them, but I wish we'd picked up a better platform.

With respect to airforce/navy, I would certainly wonder if we should not be building up a better a better ground assault capability with helicopters. A squadron of Apaches would, I think, be quite helpful for our troops and seems a natural fit. A strong navy is also needed, but I didn't buy into the whole amphib carrier deal that was floated a few years back. I like our frigates, would like to see our elderly destryoers replaced, and I'd like to see a class of heavy icebreakers, a class of off-shore corvettes, and a class of littoral warfare ships.

[tritium]

Gunnair 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.

As usual you parse out a sentence and try to troll.

tritium tritium:

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

Canada is pretty much foreign owned, just let those countries fight our battles, starting with the Arctic dispute with Russia.

It was sarcasm you stupid fuck. Get a god dam life ass wipe and quit fucking stalking me, you freak.

I like the idea that Canada is buying these planes. I hope the Government buys more military for Canada, not only for defense, also for peace combat over seas.

I think Canadians have got this idea in their head that nobody will attack Canada, and if they did the UK, or the USA would come to our aid.

[Gunnair]

tritium tritium:

Gunnair 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.

As usual you parse out a sentence and try to troll.

tritium tritium:

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

Canada is pretty much foreign owned, just let those countries fight our battles, starting with the Arctic dispute with Russia.

It was sarcasm you stupid fuck. Get a god dam life ass wipe and quit fucking stalking me, you freak.

Nice meltdown.