Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

This is not a question of emulation. We need new warplanes to defend the country, provide support to our allies, operations, NORAD, etc. Would you rather we be defenceless? I think not.

My only concern is lately I've been thinking that we should have just spent the money on Super Hornets. We could get way more units for the cost of the F-35's, we have spare parts, and ou air crews and pilots won't need much in the way of new training.

-J.

   

Funny, you have no issues vis-a-vis the F-35 (which is delayed and over budget), yet you bring up those same issues with the A400M...hmmm.

The A400M could have been a contender for either/both the C-130 or C-17. It may not have the massive payload that the C-17 has, but it has the range and will likely be much cheaper to operate. And of course there were other alternatives to the C-17 (leasing them instead of buying them outright, AN-124s, leased planes from Skylink).

There were other alternatives as well to the Chinook, but once again we sole-sourced it without examining what other companies could offer. For example, do we really NEED to buy 15 CH-47Fs when we could buy used 47Ds (especially given that the CH-47 purchase is way over budget)? Or how about the CH-53? Hell, why was it okay to lease Mi-17s (DND-designated CH-178), but not buy them?

Now, maybe we did buy the right equipment, but given that there was never a competition of any sort, we'll never know.

   

Apples and oranges. We needed new transports ASAP. The F-18 isn't due to be retired until 2018-2020. We can afford delays with the F-35, we could not afford them with the C-130 replacement.



As far as the A400M, I don't know if you recall this but way back in 2003, two companies were competing to provide the engines for this bird. Pratt and Whitney Canada, and Europrop (a consortium of European engine companies).

Pratt and Whitney Canada was selected by Airbus to provide engines for this plane, they won the contract on merit. Unfortunately, the Europeans interfered and forced Airbus to use Europrop. Pratt and Whitney Canada lost the lucrative contract, much like Bristol lost the CF-18 maintenance contract to Bombardier due to political interference.

This fiasco alone was more than enough reason to exclude the A400. Funny thing, much of the delay with the A400 has been due to the engines. Coincidence? I think not.

Number of C-130J's in service with the RCAF. 9. All 17 will be delivered in 2012.

Number of A400M's in service with ANY air force. 0.

Well will see all new 130's in service long before we would have seen our first A400. Given how knackered our 130E's were, this is critical.

As far as leasing, the Brits leased their C-17's initially, but ending up buying them outright as in the long run it is cheaper. We made the right call.

As far as buying Russian... well let's just say you get what you pay for, and I know of a few serving or retired CF personnel (some on this forum) who have flown on those Russian jets and have formed informed opinions on them.




As far as buying Russian, see above.

The new CH-53 is due for its first test flight this month. USMC has dibs on the first deliveries (introduction in 2018). When would we see ours? 2020?

Even the delayed CH-47's will be in service and flying before then.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/final- ... 2011-10-21



Mind you I don't think the government is doing everything right with the Chinooks, we should be sending those D models we bought back to Boeing to be rebuilt as F's, not getting rid of them.

   

That is exactly what the liberals said during the last election. Harper told us our cost for them was locked in, and we were getting them for cheaper than even the Americans would. That was all bullshit of course, and we should have started making other arrangements at the same time our allies did. Its Harper's baby.

   

All the Liberals said last election is that they would have a competition and take bids. I never heard them state a preference for an alternate fighter.

   

The conservatives were the ones saying the F-35 was the only plane that was any good to us, not the Liberals.

   

The Liberals didn't state a preference for the Super Bug or any other plane.

The "right plane for the right price" could be any jet, including the F-35.

   

Really? Creating Canadian jobs? We gonna build our own 5th gen stealth fighter?

Or do you think a DEFENCE budget is best spent creating jobs and bugger the fact that it won't be the best bit of kit our boys in the CF need?

I'm sure the guys will thank you as they go into battle with second-rate kit. I'm sure they will be glad that a few jobs were 'created'.

   

I'm kind of surprised by how low that number is. It reminds me of the time when the West Edmonton Mall had more functional submarines than the Canadian navy! What's next, a group of Toronto mortgage brokers who own more barracks than the military?

   

Somewhere we could have spent money to create Canadian Jobs -> TAPV. I'm not happy with any of the contenders and wouldn't want to use any of them as armoured reconnaissance vehicles. Coulda shoulda woulda got GM defence to purchase the designs of the Fennec, modify the thing a bit so there is a 4 wheeled version for recce and a 6 wheeled version for transporting troops, and build the damned things here.

   

I get kind of tired of that old 'joke' just look up how many nations HAVE a submariner service of any sort, the list is pretty small.

   

How many countries with say a coastline over 200,000 kms long have more than two crappy subs?

   

I don't know why fighters have to be so bleeding-edge. I still advocate that second-tier powers (no offense, mind you) should look to alternatives such as easy to maintain turbo prop fighters with state-of-the-art avionics and missiles hanging on the rails.

Were it up to me, Canada would reinvest in the CF-18 and also look at some less expensive options for patrol and flag-waving.

Seriously, you hang some anti-ship missiles, a couple 20mm cannons, and a wicked radar set on one of these and you've got a flexible, inexpensive, and effective platform for patrol.



Yes, have some CF-18s ready for the proverbial rainy day, but augment what air superiority fighters you can afford with some less expensive platforms for doing the main job Canada really needs: patrolling the frontiers.

   

Bart - How about bring back the Arrow concept? The specfic airframe would be next to impossible, but a high-speed interceptor/high-speed strike fighter isn't out of the realm of possibility considering that is exactly what we are looking for, and exactly what the Arrow was. Who needs stealth when you can outrun every surface-to-air and air-air missile at mach 3.0+ except for the Aim 120 (mach 4)?

   

well if there are just shy of 80 operational CF-18's you could make the argument that this airframe's capability makes up for the -15 jets in numbers. I think the actual operational current strength is 76, so really 10 jets shy.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next