Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Not their sub program. Us building our own subs instead of buying the UK junk might have had the same issues they had.

The Collins class had a hard time of it, but at least they don't get wrapped around the axles in buying on license. Charles F. Adams, OHPs - then their own ANZACs. Wish we could do the same. Love to see some Arliegh Burkes built on license.

   

I agree. The Aussie sub program was fraught with difficulties. On that, I'm still a big fan of the U212's. They would be great for our needs.

   

I didn't see your post on the F18's.

I think it borders on a national disgrace that Air Command seems unable and/or unwilling to deploy the F18's to Khandahar.

The C17's could easily hack a squadron move. We have the Airbus tankers. Why haven't we got our own F18's providing air support for our infantry?

I spent 10 years of my life deploying with RAF strike/fighter aircraft all around the globe. It baffles me why the F18's are not flying out of KAF.

   

The irony for our U212 sub crews attending Battle of the Atlantic Sunday...

   

In my uneducated opinion, one CF 18 air strike gone bad would kick the CPC right in the junk of public opinion. Easier to let the Americans take the heat.

   

The RAF haven't done a blue-on-blue for as long as I can remember. I can't see any good reason why our CF18's are not out there.

   

I don't think those kind of things register anymore. When I was at CFB Goose Bay in the late 80's, the Luftwaffe had a major presence. We all got together for Rememberance Day at the Legion. Most of the vets were very welcoming.

I've worked with the Luftwaffe a lot. Very good at what they do and we got on very well with them (after getting to know them!).

   

well, first off the super hornet while very capable is not really 'new tech'. I would argue with the current modernization of the hornet fleet, at a capability level they would be very similar.

My only real concern with the F-35 is the single engine design. A big issue IMO.

Those thinking F-22 forget it, way to cost prohibitive, even for the US, they won't get 200 of them and right now there are about 160 and they likely won't get any more than what is currently on the production line.

I was hoping for a slightly larger number of jets but, we are only operating 80 hornets as it is, if this jet's capabilities are worth 1.25 hornets per unit then there might be some logic in the number.

   

I'd like to remind everyone that this order has been getting smaller and smaller from day one. The original order was for at LEAST 120 F-35's.

   

That was a little tongue in cheek and I agree. If it meant a quality product, I'd support buying Kilo's.

   

Costs keeping going up (surprise) and though buying them does assume that large scale conflict is still a possibility, it is a somewhat remote one at this time.

Might also be a bit of a national PR faux pas to raise China as the new Red Menace in order to increase the military spending programs.

   

I think things in the Med and the Gulf might be heating up. Having a good air combat capability is never a bad thing but then I am a bit biased on air power. Per Ardua ad Astra and all that.

   

Yes they did, and I'm sure Boeing would be more than happy to build us 65 F-18E/F versions. What after though? I know Brazil has the F-18E/F on the short list for their air combat procurement, and Greece has been approached as well (I don't think Greece has the money to gas up their current fleet never mind buying new planes), so the program's future looks pretty bleak at this point. Most of the other countries who have an air force would rather purchase Russian planes since they're cheaper (i.e. India) or steal specs and make their own (i.e. China). The U.S. is spending $320 billion to buy 2,400 F-35's (it boggles the mind). Even though the 2010 defence spending bill asked the U.S. Armed Forces to consider the F-18 in future purchases, the Marines have already said no thanks (they want the VTOL version of the F-35). So I say Canada has to follow the money, which at this point appears to headed to the F-35. I would rather Canada put the funds toward purchasing a plane whose main role is ground attack (A-10 anyone?), not air superiority. I can't see Canada ever being in a situation where it needs to win the skies over another country. The Yanks fill that role quite nicely, and even they prefer to send in the cruise missiles first to take out enemy planes on the ground and send in the planes after to mop up (i.e. Iraq). Ground support is critical for us though. Multi-role fighters are fine, but you just can't beat a purpose built ground attack plane (combat helicopter instead?). That's just my opinion though.

   

I would rather look at the Eurofighter but we are already invested in the F-35.

   

Interesting Q-ball.

You have a good point about F35 vs a dedicated ground attack or COIN aircraft. (I do like it when somebody actually know's what they are talking about when it comes to air power!)

If we looked at the F35 prely for air defence in Canada, we could probably get away with 40 aircraft. We barely have that many CF18's air worthy as it is now and the F35 is a vastly superior aircraft.

I like the thought of a dedicated CF COIN aircraft or even a squadron or so of Apaches would be nice.

For air support there are plenty of available and off-the-shelf options. A CF A10.....that would be something!

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next