Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

1 - 20 of 376 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,388 Posts
Who Knows! We don't have all the information before us. Oooopps that might be too political to suggest.:eek:

I think we should look at many options and perhaps unmanned drones should be the way of the future.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,115 Posts
The current fleet of CF-18s are aging and are getting long in the tooth. It's pretty bad when DND goes the War Museum to scavenge for parts.

I'm sure some probably asked the same question regarding the Sea Kings as well. ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
The current fleet of CF-18s are aging and are getting long in the tooth. It's pretty bad when DND goes the War Museum to scavenge for parts.

I'm sure some probably asked the same question regarding the Sea Kings as well. ;)
Helicopters make sense as they have multiple roles, such as SAR

But in the 80's we acquired CF-18's when we were still in the cold war, now I just don't see the need for fighter aircraft when there are other more efficient options.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Oooopps that might be too political to suggest.:eek:
Yeah I am trying to be pragmatic about this as I am sure that Liberals were in power when we started going down the path with the F35.

I think this is a what is best for Canada, and I just don't see the need for these things.

What exactly is the role for them? What purpose do they serve?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,759 Posts
Let's ignore the $29 Billion number. Experience with previous highly complex Military requisitions would indicate that $150 Billion should be considered the minimum amount that these will cost.

Given the current inability of the Feds to balance the budget or even get our boys out of Afghanistan time to cut our losses and scrap this idea.

As previously mentioned helicopters or transport planes would be a better investment.
 

·
Vorlon Ambassador
Joined
·
5,295 Posts
Do we really need this?

F-35 jets cost to soar to $29B: watchdog - Politics - CBC News

Wouldn't we be better served having Bombardier develop some long range drones for sovereignty patrols? It would be MUCH cheaper and more useful.
While I agree there's gotta be something cheaper and not having production delays, I don't think the solution is drones. Don't get me wrong, I like the F-35, but if it's going to cost a ton and have delays, I don't think we want it. Someone had mentioned the F-18 SuperHornet, which is a newer version of the F-18 - the cost is supposed to be around $55 million each. $55 million and no delay is much better than $110 million or more and delays up your ying-yang. A bunch of F-18 Super Hornets and a bunch of drones may be a satisfactory solution.


The new Typhoon seems to have money and delay problems. I don't know much about the newer Mirage. There aren't too many choices.
 

·
Vorlon Ambassador
Joined
·
5,295 Posts
What exactly is the role for them? What purpose do they serve?
Sovereinty. I'd rather not have to depend on the US to protect our air space and patrol our country.

If we want to continue peace keeping missions, they may be required for escort missions or to patrol no-fly zones.
 

·
Vorlon Ambassador
Joined
·
5,295 Posts
LOL - even the US is buying F-18 Super Hornets to hold them over till the F-35

On 14 May 2010, it was reported that Boeing and the US Department of Defense reached an agreement for a multi-year contract for an additional 66 F/A-18E/Fs and 58 EA-18Gs over the next four years. The latest order for 124 aircraft will raise the total fleet count to 515 F/A-18E/Fs and 114 EA-18Gs.[64] However the Navy is already 60 fighters below its validated requirement for fighter aircraft and this purchase will not close the gap.[65] The deal was finalized on 28 September 2010 for a multi-year contract said to save $600 million (over per year contracts) for 66 Super Hornets and 58 Growlers and to help deal with a four-year delay in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.[66]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Sovereinty. I'd rather not have to depend on the US to protect our air space and patrol our country.

If we want to continue peace keeping missions, they may be required for escort missions or to patrol no-fly zones.
I agree that having to depend on the US to protect our air space and patrol our country is a bad thing.

But from a capability standpoint what can these things do that couldn't be done by an armed drone? I can think of anything other than dog fighting... and that doesn't seem to be enough of a reason for them. Everything else could be done by drones like the Globalhawk, which have more endurance and a range, can be armed with long range air to air standoff and air to ground standoff munitions. Plus drones are a LOT cheaper.
 

·
Klingon Warrior
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
No no no! They need to resurrect Avro I tell ya! Modernize the Arrow.... Call it the Super Arrow or something!
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,509 Posts
jeez just fill the backends of the old subway cars full'o rocket fuel and spark'em up. That should scare the bejesus out of them russians.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
If not the F-35's, then we will at least need to have some sort of plan to replace the current jets. Otherwise we will end up in the same mess we were in with the Sea King helicopters...that were past their useful life when the decision was made to buy new ones, let alone the decision to cancel that contract.
 

·
Canuck of Enlightenment
Joined
·
949 Posts
Or why not the SU-35?

Leased to be made in Canada, we could even upgrade the electronics.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,115 Posts
Helicopters make sense as they have multiple roles, such as SAR

But in the 80's we acquired CF-18's when we were still in the cold war, now I just don't see the need for fighter aircraft when there are other more efficient options.
Canada's military has been planning on refurnishing their old equipment and it's about time—Canada doesn't spend a lot of money on equipment to begin with. They recognize that they are far behind technologically and have been preparing to make a move to better prepare our soliders with state of the art equipment.

Drones are fine for what they're made for, but are not as versatile as a jetfighter; you can't protect our airspace with a drone. It just isn't going to happen.

Myself, I'm surprised that Canada didn't bother with the Super Hornet, but judging from what I've heard/read from DND, they want to go high-tech including stealth frigates.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,759 Posts
...Myself, I'm surprised that Canada didn't bother with the Super Hornet, but judging from what I've heard/read from DND, they want to go high-tech including stealth frigates.
Bad enough that our Navy consists entirely of a handful of friggin frigates, now you wanna make em invisible?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,388 Posts
Yup. If we forget where we park 'em, we're screwed.
That will never be a problem and why we always moor, birth, dock or anchor them and never park 'em anywhere. ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,956 Posts
Yup - good choice, the F-35! (this guy goes a bit overboard making the case for it... "it's this or flying coffins!")

It'll be a purchase right in line with other recent military 'deals' Canada made... good grief....


Senators Love Their Stealth Jet; Never Mind a New Design Flaw



...another design problem with the $150-million airplane — a weakened wing structure. The admission is sure to fan the political flames raging around the $380 billion [$29-billion+ for the Canadian purchase - CM] Joint Strike Fighter program, which aims to replace most of the existing Air Force, Navy and Marines fighters, but has been beset by delays, cost overruns, technical problems and questions over performance.

“The ‘defective’ aluminum beam was detected in November on Air Force and Marine Corps test aircraft after an unrelated bulkhead crack surfaced in the Marine Corps model,” Bloomberg reported. The problem reduces the lifespan of the F-35A and F-35B’s wing from 8,000 hours — roughly 25 years of operations — to just 1,200 hours, or around five years.

“This is not considered a serious issue,” F-35 spokesman Joseph DellaVedova said of the flimsy beam. Lockheed argues that the cracks could be considered a good thing, sorta, because the aluminum rib lasted 2,800 hours. But the Pentagon’s top testing official disagrees. Fixing the flaw will be a “difficult and complex process,”
(Wired)
 
1 - 20 of 376 Posts
Top