Yeah we can use the Super Hornets on our imaginary carriers.
F35
- Thread starter D23
- Start date
Yeah we can use the Super Hornets on our imaginary carriers.
(I was being facetious btw)
The real concern with the 18E/F would be how long the airframe is up to the task. Purchasing super hornets to replace our F-18s means the pilots essentially continue flying the same plane, with some updated avionics. Forget stealth and forget situational awareness.
The real concern with the 18E/F would be how long the airframe is up to the task. Purchasing super hornets to replace our F-18s means the pilots essentially continue flying the same plane, with some updated avionics. Forget stealth and forget situational awareness.
Quite a bit of sense in this post...we'll have none of that.
you've already been told an alternative--the f22 is a part of your ncw matrix.
grumblings from many sources already point to the fact that 187 f22s ain't going to cut it in the future. 2012 is an election year, you can bet if the gop wins, they will find cash to boost the military.
they've already costed out a restart of the f22 programme, and they could be delivering stealth f22s to canada years ahead of the f35.
Wait let me try to understand... The F35 is a boondoggle, but placing bets on non-existent unmanned drones 'makes sense'? LOL
The ones that currently look down on our border run by our neighbours currently exist. The ones that take out insurgents and land targets currently exist.
The F22 program was quite dead, I thought... most of the engineers are now working on the F35. It went way over budget and way past deadline just like the F35. I'd be shocked if they started up that program again.
mmmnaked - you're right.. the F35 avionics package is top notch, and integration with the USAF is a must. I was thinking more in terms of it's abilities - its seems to have underwhelming performance and doesn't quite fit the bill for the style of fighter aircraft Canada needs. Why do we need a fat, slow multirole fighter? How much air-to-surface strikes do we perform? Canada needs interceptors... especially if we need to start worrying about that Arctic
Performance-wise, it is regularly beaten in competitions by 4.5 gen fighters like the Eurofighter and Gripen... and in simulations it has lost out to SU30's. For a plane worth $200 million, that's unfortunate.
And in regards to the Avro Arrow, if that program had have been adopted, they would have still been in service today (just look at the F4, which was designed mostly by the Avro engineers). And with projected speeds of Mach 2, they would have beaten the F35 flat out
So two out of three of the main jobs we want these replacements to do can be done by drones...much more cheaply. I'm just pointing out that there are, and always have been options. The US doesn't see fit to replace it's entire arsenal with a general purpose piece of kit...why should we?
suprPHREAK
Well-known member
There is no point in bringing up the F-22. It is full of technology that has not been (and never will be) approved for export from the USA. Plus, it has been cancelled. Boeing would need to spend a lot on R&D to make it fit US Export requirements for us. It would just cost more than more.
Drones would be EXCELLENT for Arctic ground/water patrol. Some of these things have 24+ hours of endurance. This makes them ridiculously cheap to operate, and not burdened by pilot fatigue. They are the perfect reconnaissance aircraft. But useless against other aircraft...
I think the one thing so many people are missing here, is that no matter what we buy, be it F35 or whatever, they will ALL be irrelevant and out of date before they reach EOL. Technology is changing faster than ever. With a planned life-cycle that would put it at expiry almost 50 years from now, what do you think the world will even look like? Assuming we haven't reached some apocalyptic end, we will have experienced several paradigm shifts. Politics wont be the same, planes wont be the same, cars wont be the same, electronics wont be the same, and war absolutely wont be the same. Strictly put, we cannot in any way predict what the next 50 years will hold, and as such it is important we have what is best NOW, so it has even an ice-cube's chance in hell it will still be usable in the future.
I'm not saying the F35 is that "best", not in the least. I'm saying that decisions on what the future will be need to be made, and perhaps saving our pennies and buying existing/older tech (F15E is new and very competitive with today's tech, with dual-engine reliability and better speed/range than the F35, at much less cost), so that we have money to spend when that next paradigm shift occurs is the better choice.
Drones would be EXCELLENT for Arctic ground/water patrol. Some of these things have 24+ hours of endurance. This makes them ridiculously cheap to operate, and not burdened by pilot fatigue. They are the perfect reconnaissance aircraft. But useless against other aircraft...
I think the one thing so many people are missing here, is that no matter what we buy, be it F35 or whatever, they will ALL be irrelevant and out of date before they reach EOL. Technology is changing faster than ever. With a planned life-cycle that would put it at expiry almost 50 years from now, what do you think the world will even look like? Assuming we haven't reached some apocalyptic end, we will have experienced several paradigm shifts. Politics wont be the same, planes wont be the same, cars wont be the same, electronics wont be the same, and war absolutely wont be the same. Strictly put, we cannot in any way predict what the next 50 years will hold, and as such it is important we have what is best NOW, so it has even an ice-cube's chance in hell it will still be usable in the future.
I'm not saying the F35 is that "best", not in the least. I'm saying that decisions on what the future will be need to be made, and perhaps saving our pennies and buying existing/older tech (F15E is new and very competitive with today's tech, with dual-engine reliability and better speed/range than the F35, at much less cost), so that we have money to spend when that next paradigm shift occurs is the better choice.
F-15E is new? If by that you mean upgraded 1970s technology, then yeah I guess it's "new"
Boeing was pushing the F-15SE as a cheaper alternative to the F-35, but that is still in development and to my knowledge very few have been built and flown. Boeing saw a niche in the market (considering escalating F-35 costs) and decided to offer up a cheaper alternative. Only a real world test would say just how 'good' it is, but I'm gonna go on a limb and say that any 'stealth' upgrades done to a 1970s airframe will have serious limitations compared to a brand new F-35. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain that the included technologies in the F-15SE (if it ever goes into production) will be severely limited by US export controls.
I agree with most of everything else you've stated though. The world is changing, and our safest bet is to have whatever the best piece of equipment currently is. For reasons mentioned before (NCW/NCO) I feel the F-35 will be our only real option.
And one more thing... taking into consideration the immense cost and time invested in development of the F-22, the Eurofighter, the F-35, and the PAK-FA, I wouldn't be too quick to say that a huge paradigm shift in technology will come too soon. At least not in the jet fighter realm. It's clearly becoming hugely expensive to develop these new weapons systems; I'd imagine the Russians, Chinese, and Americans may have to stretch their pennies further in the future by sticking to upgrades of existing fleets rather than costly development of the 'next gen' fighter.
Boeing was pushing the F-15SE as a cheaper alternative to the F-35, but that is still in development and to my knowledge very few have been built and flown. Boeing saw a niche in the market (considering escalating F-35 costs) and decided to offer up a cheaper alternative. Only a real world test would say just how 'good' it is, but I'm gonna go on a limb and say that any 'stealth' upgrades done to a 1970s airframe will have serious limitations compared to a brand new F-35. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain that the included technologies in the F-15SE (if it ever goes into production) will be severely limited by US export controls.
I agree with most of everything else you've stated though. The world is changing, and our safest bet is to have whatever the best piece of equipment currently is. For reasons mentioned before (NCW/NCO) I feel the F-35 will be our only real option.
And one more thing... taking into consideration the immense cost and time invested in development of the F-22, the Eurofighter, the F-35, and the PAK-FA, I wouldn't be too quick to say that a huge paradigm shift in technology will come too soon. At least not in the jet fighter realm. It's clearly becoming hugely expensive to develop these new weapons systems; I'd imagine the Russians, Chinese, and Americans may have to stretch their pennies further in the future by sticking to upgrades of existing fleets rather than costly development of the 'next gen' fighter.
Last edited:
the f22 is still being built. . .the last ones will finish later this spring, so no, it's not dead yet.
the dod has removed funding for further orders, but they could spin production back up a lot quicker than what the f35 program is doing. even with its bloated costing, it will be cheaper than what the f35s will end up costing us, and will not be years overdue.
for. the. time. being.
re-read my previous posts. that could all change in november.
the gates doctrine will not last forever. . .
pfft. still ALL TRUE and not disputed.
i'm still waiting for any of your sources
and
for you to clearly delineate the roles you think the f35 is the superior choice for. . .
until then, you have demonstrated nothing to support the idea that the f35 is the right choice.
I've absolutely demonstrated why its the best choice, looking forward. The best you can come back with is F-22s, which aren't even in production, and more importantly were never (and will never) be allowed for export? That's pathetic.
The role is a multi-role fighter. A fighter capable of intercept, reconnaissance, stealth, A2A and A2S deployments, and full integration into NCW doctrine and NORAD.
Care to try a new suggestion? Or will you proclaim again that we should buy an aircraft which isn't for sale? :lol:
State my sources? Which facts are in dispute, exactly? My opinion is based on my own knowledge of the subject, the best publicly available details. I'm not quoting blogs and leftie media, I don't need to post any sources. The information is out there, I've already taught you a whole bunch of stuff you probably had to run to wikipedia to look up.
The role is a multi-role fighter. A fighter capable of intercept, reconnaissance, stealth, A2A and A2S deployments, and full integration into NCW doctrine and NORAD.
Care to try a new suggestion? Or will you proclaim again that we should buy an aircraft which isn't for sale? :lol:
State my sources? Which facts are in dispute, exactly? My opinion is based on my own knowledge of the subject, the best publicly available details. I'm not quoting blogs and leftie media, I don't need to post any sources. The information is out there, I've already taught you a whole bunch of stuff you probably had to run to wikipedia to look up.
Last edited:
