Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 18  Next

I dunno... has anything new come out in the last 2 years? Somethings got to have been announced since the last post was made in this thread. How about the J-10? Wonder if China would sell us it's new "wonder knockoff!"

   

well the F-22 is the best combat aircraft on earth, no question about that. but that belongs to the US and i doubt we'd give it up to anyone anytime soon. i'd say the F-35 is your best bet cuz its a joint program with the UK so canada could most likely get their hands on it.

   

The F-35 is already being decontented by the Americans before they will sell them to their "friends". The Brits, among others, are not amused.

The F-35 will end up being gruesomely overpriced anyways, so we'd end up buying thirty or so of them. And they're single engined - unsuitable for conditions in Canada.

Screw the F-35: Canada should go with Dassault, Eurofighter or Sukhoi.

   

The F-22, without a doubt, is the best air-to-air combat fighter in the world. It's already put up some very impressive stats.

The only problem with the F-22 is the price tag.

Canada's F-18's will end up being replaced with the F-35, for better or for worse. We've already sunk something like 150 million dollars of our own money into the project. The F-35 is great multi-role fighter, and will share some of the F-22's technology. It won't have all of the F-22's stealth features, or supercruise, but it will be better suited to ground attacks than the F-22.

   

The money went into the JSF proram so that Canadian companies would get some of the manufacturign contracts.

In the meantime, Canada does not need a strike fighter. What Canada needs is an aircraft capable of shooting down bombers, strike fighters, and air-air fighters from other countries. During the 20th century this was Germany and Russia, in the next century I foresee china.

Really, we should have a fighter capable of taking on entire squadrons of long range bombers. This means the fighter would need a large combat radius and lots of hardpoints. the SU-30MKI, Eurofighter, and SU-35/37 all have these capabilities (and we are allowed to buy them). While the JSF has the range, it simply doesn't pack enough punch. And the US will never sell us the F-22.

Another possibility would be the Russian Pak-Fa, but I doubt it will be in production before purchasing time came around.

And yet another cool option would be to resurrect the YF-23 program. The fighter was in many ways far more capable than the F-22; Stealthier, faster, longer range, and more maneuverable at supersonic speeds. Equip it with the same radar package as the F-22, and you have a killer aircraft. Only reason that the US chose the F-22 over the YF-23 was part commonality with other aircraft. We don't have that problem, as we don't have any second class of fighters that would operate alongside the YF-23




In all honesty though, our opinions don't matter. However, we should be pushing for a competition between all the fighters listed above, the F/A-18 E/F, and possible the YF-23 and Pak-Fa if allowed. meaning petitions and the like.

   

Sorry was just out the door when I noticed this thread. If we are just talking planes not politics and narrowing the field to our north then I cast my vote for the Mig-29 those things are stupid tough and never need the same attention as other air frames in severe cold.

   

same can be said for any Russian fighter.

While the things are tough as hell, they need constant maintinence. I read somewhere on here that the MiG-29 has a 1-1 maintinence schedule. meaning for ever hour or aircraft spent in the air, one is spent in the hangar.

They can go where no other fighter aircraft can go (rough fields, arctic weather, mountain sides, etc.), but something always breaks.

   

The F-35 seems to be the best bet. It's price it not too much compared to those other planes out there and it's versitile enough to fill multiple roles.

   

again, explain where we need multiple roles?

We need an aircraft that can shoot down other aircraft and possibly naval vessels. We don't need anything that can blow up SAM sites or ground vehicles (Tanks, APCs, etc.) because we will never be fighting a war on the ground unless we and our allies fail to stop the navy from dropping such articles off our shoreline beforehand.

   

That's assuming we will only ever fight on our own soil. Something I'm sure we want to avoid.

   

Exactly. If we're not off on some NATO Mission, there really is no need for ground attack ability, so why have it? Not pissing anyone else off, so why would they come after us?

And yes, I know we have loads of water people want. But remember, they have to get here to take it first. So if they try, kill em en-route, then use long-ranged bombers to take out their military installations.

   

You missed the point. We have never fought on our own land. So why in hell should we prepare for only that. How about we prepare for what we will actually use them for, I.E. NATO missions.

   

I chose the Eurofighter Typhoon.

But if given a choice "Canda build it's own, new fighter" that would be my first choice.

What I don't understand is why are we looking to other countries to supply our military. I don't like the idea of outsourcing our military.

We built the Avro Arrow, the best plan of its time, why can't we do it again.

   

How about bringing the Arrow back in modernised form?

   

Yes Streaker, bring back the Avro Arrow, sure why not? Great Idea!!

BTW, nice sig.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Streaker: ''Whenever has the US bailed Canada out, Bart?''

BartSimpson: ''World War One and World War Two come to mind.''

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 18  Next