Canada has a good reason not to want the f-35/US wants 6th Gen fighter by 2030,

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
667
Reaction score
24
This article explains a few reasons why Canada doesn't want the F-35:


1) Cost


2) Canada doesnt need a strike/light bomber aircraft capability like the F-35 offers, it needs a patrol/fighter aircraft.


3) There is still a chance Canada will buy F-35s if price is lowered


.At a recent meeting at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., Gen. Mike Hostage, chief of the U.S. air force’s combat command, provided more details on the plane his organization wants to buy. The sixth generation aircraft would not be a drone and instead would be flown by a pilot. The air force would need the new plane around 2030 and it will be equipped with what he called “game-changing capability,” he noted.[/size]“We don’t yet know what it is but we’re out there looking carefully,” Hostage said at the conference.
[/size]The air force would keep the F-35s flying as well, at least for the mid-term. “I need the F-35 to add a fifth-generation layer to make the fourth-generation force effective out to 2030,” Hostage said.
[/size]But Rideau Institute president Steve Staples said the U.S. military plans for a new jet shows the folly of the Conservative government’s original plan to buy the F-35. “This is just a huge treadmill being paid for by public dollars and you can be sure that before the paint is dry on any F-35s Canada buys, our generals will be claiming they need a so-called sixth generation fighter as well,” said Staples, a critic of the F-35 and excessive defence spending.
[/size]He said the current fleet of Canadian CF-18s could be kept flying and used for the defence of North America for years to come. The only role for new fighters is to support U.S. operations and “shock and awe” campaigns against other nations, Staples added.
[/size]Staples pointed out that that term “game-changing capability” had also been used to describe the technology outfitted in the F-35s. “The only thing changing is that the cost keeps going up for these type of aircraft,” he added.[/size]

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canada+purchase+stalls+already+pushing+sixth+generation+fighter+2030/7690204/story.html#ixzz2H2swogwz



"
 

Attachments

  • AIR_F-35_Multinational_lg.jpg
    AIR_F-35_Multinational_lg.jpg
    118.8 KB · Views: 256

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
2,945
Kryptid said:
And we all know that a 6th generation fighter would be more affordable than the F-35... ::)

But by 2030 a 7th Generation will be due around 2060 so why not wait..............forever ;D
 

chuck4

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
12
Canada is perfectly positioned to freeload off of United State's own defence needs. Canada only supports any significant standing military out of the need to get some small measure of influence in international bodies.

It's only when there is actual potential for conflict between the US and Canada (don't laugh) that it becomes actually economically worthwhile for Canada to pay for some defence of her own. When there was a hint in the mid 1980s that the US might not recognize Canada's claim to resources of the Arctic Ocean, Canada started making noises about purchasing nuclear submarines (probably from the French) to enforce its claims.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
bobbymike said:
Kryptid said:
And we all know that a 6th generation fighter would be more affordable than the F-35... ::)
But by 2030 a 7th Generation will be due around 2060 so why not wait..............forever ;D
.......until these become available? ;D

XwingHeroHome-SW.jpg
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
kcran567 said:
This article explains a few reasons why Canada doesn't want the F-35:


1) Cost


2) Canada doesnt need a strike/light bomber aircraft capability like the F-35 offers, it needs a patrol/fighter aircraft.


3) There is still a chance Canada will buy F-35s if price is lowered


.At a recent meeting at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., Gen. Mike Hostage, chief of the U.S. air force’s combat command, provided more details on the plane his organization wants to buy. The sixth generation aircraft would not be a drone and instead would be flown by a pilot. The air force would need the new plane around 2030 and it will be equipped with what he called “game-changing capability,” he noted.[/size]“We don’t yet know what it is but we’re out there looking carefully,” Hostage said at the conference.
[/size]The air force would keep the F-35s flying as well, at least for the mid-term. “I need the F-35 to add a fifth-generation layer to make the fourth-generation force effective out to 2030,” Hostage said.
[/size]But Rideau Institute president Steve Staples said the U.S. military plans for a new jet shows the folly of the Conservative government’s original plan to buy the F-35. “This is just a huge treadmill being paid for by public dollars and you can be sure that before the paint is dry on any F-35s Canada buys, our generals will be claiming they need a so-called sixth generation fighter as well,” said Staples, a critic of the F-35 and excessive defence spending.
[/size]He said the current fleet of Canadian CF-18s could be kept flying and used for the defence of North America for years to come. The only role for new fighters is to support U.S. operations and “shock and awe” campaigns against other nations, Staples added.
[/size]Staples pointed out that that term “game-changing capability” had also been used to describe the technology outfitted in the F-35s. “The only thing changing is that the cost keeps going up for these type of aircraft,” he added.[/size]

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canada+purchase+stalls+already+pushing+sixth+generation+fighter+2030/7690204/story.html#ixzz2H2swogwz



"

Its funny how everytime I try to promote the F-35 I get a "Well its not in service yet so we will see about these big claims" And then some guy proposes a 6th Generation aircraft and flat out says “We don’t yet know what it is but we’re out there looking carefully,” and its the next shiny object to lust after.

This 6th generation aircraft will be completely affordable, and of course like the F-22 we will totally export it. And to a country like Canada that is freaking out about the cost of the cheapest 5th gen fighter out there (yes even now in its expensive LRIP phase). Canada can't seem to handle 5th gen prices and now suddenly 6th gen is on the horizon? ::) Thats funny. Buy the sixth generation fighter and park it next to your space carriers, and laser shields Canada.

1. I also think we need to distinguish what Canada "wants" A large portion of your government and your military wants the F-35.

2. this next 6th gen airplane will be patrol?

3. the price is the price and the KPMG report says what it is. Canada is now comparing costs with other options
 

Flying Sorcerer

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
102
Reaction score
32
I recall back in the 70s one of the reasons used to oppose the B-1 was that in just a few years something much better would come along, so why waste the money? When the B-2 emerged, we were told it was redundant, too expensive, etc. I suspect the same logic is at work in Canada, so if we don't get a 5th generation aircraft we'll talk ourselves out of getting a 6th or 7th generation one. It always amazes me how people who can't muster anything but contempt for things military (and in Canada, that's a lot of people) are suddenly expert on advanced military technology.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,566
chuck4 said:
Canada is perfectly positioned to freeload off of United State's own defence needs. Canada only supports any significant standing military out of the need to get some small measure of influence in international bodies.

It's only when there is actual potential for conflict between the US and Canada (don't laugh) that it becomes actually economically worthwhile for Canada to pay for some defence of her own. When there was a hint in the mid 1980s that the US might not recognize Canada's claim to resources of the Arctic Ocean, Canada started making noises about purchasing nuclear submarines (probably from the French) to enforce its claims.

Always good to read the opinions of a genuine expert in Canadian defence policy. Clearly you've really boned up on 'Defence Against Help' and the role that core concept played in the 1980s Mulroney Conservatives interest in SSNs for the Arctic.

BTW, there was no "hint". The US has never recognized Canada's sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. It still doesn't.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
I thought the plan for the sixth generation aircraft was to replace the Super Hornet with it and make it the Hi of the F/A-XX/F-35 Hi/lo mix after the F-18 legacy aircraft are replaced. So that would have been like Canada replacing their Hornets 15 years in with F-15s.

With all the doom and gloom about national bankruptcy surrounding the F-35 I am still amazed we suddenly think a sixth generation aircraft is just "right around the corner" Just because we theoretically can't afford the F-35 requirements laid out by the services doesn't mean we don't have the money to start anew with the same inherent fiascos under a new name. I'm hoping the US will order around 200 F/A-XX and receive
(maybe) 30. If Canada wants in on the action and can afford one or two, I'm sure we will find it in our hearts to sell ya a couple.
 

beachhead1973

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
kcran567 said:
2) Canada doesnt need a strike/light bomber aircraft capability like the F-35 offers, it needs a patrol/fighter aircraft.

this
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
beachhead1973 said:
kcran567 said:
2) Canada doesnt need a strike/light bomber aircraft capability like the F-35 offers, it needs a patrol/fighter aircraft.

this

I wonder why your military thinks otherwise? Do you think it was Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, or even the troops fighting in Afghanistan? Could that be Why your military thinks its needs an aircraft capable of fighting in foreign and hostile environments? I hate to break it to you Canada, but you have never been a country that takes all your toys and goes home. Your air force is good for more than turning jet fuel into noise over the arctic. So realize you are an adult nation that is part of many international organizations (UN, NATO, Etc) that force you to have military commitments outside your own borders.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
2,945
TaiidanTomcat said:
beachhead1973 said:
kcran567 said:
2) Canada doesnt need a strike/light bomber aircraft capability like the F-35 offers, it needs a patrol/fighter aircraft.

this

I wonder why your military thinks otherwise? Do you think it was Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, or even the troops fighting in Afghanistan? Could that be Why your military thinks its needs an aircraft capable of fighting in foreign and hostile environments? I hate to break it to you Canada, but you have never been a country that takes all your toys and goes home. Your air force is good for more than turning jet fuel into noise over the arctic. So realize you are an adult nation that is part of many international organizations (UN, NATO, Etc) that force you to have military commitments outside your own borders.
You are correct sir! I spoke to the Commander of CFB Edmonton and asked about the F-35 the word he kept repeating was future interoperability with our allies
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,566
TaiidanTomcat said:
I wonder why your military thinks otherwise?

That patrol/fighter aircraft emphasis has more to do with current government priorities than the Canadian Forces.

bobbymike said:
I spoke to the Commander of CFB Edmonton and asked about the F-35 the word he kept repeating was future interoperability with our allies

As an infanteer, I'd have thought LCol Reiffenstein would've said "ground support!". ;D
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
319
Apophenia said:
That patrol/fighter aircraft emphasis has more to do with current government priorities than the Canadian Forces.

This is a cross that Canada, like Australia, has to bear. Being that a considerable (ie overwhelming majority) of the public policy debate is dominated by relativists when it comes to defence policy they invent pretty ridiculous reasonings to try and avoid the reality of international security. Which includes patrolling the underpopulated, inhospitable parts of the country. In Canada’s case it is the Arctic north which at least has a nearby nasty (Russia) though of course is so inhospitable to human activity that the idea of any military activity there (beyond missiles passing overhead 50km above the earth) is ridiculous. Of course the noise made by the relativists is also welcomed by the far right extremists who see a full scale invasion of the Arctic north as an actual possibility and in amongst their Fortress Canada craziness welcome the idea of a “patrol fighter”.

So the professional defence community who simply want to maintain a flexible, balanced force and actually fight the missions they get (international security) try and accommodate this policy pontificating with minimal disruption. So if a “patrol fighter” for the Arctic north is mandated then make it a high survivability strike fighter (F-35) that can do the made up mission and also the real ones. The problem of course arises when an unholy trinity of ignorance between the public policy talking heads, far right crazies and belligerent ignorants in the mass media reaches fever pitch and the reasoned voices of the military are drowned out and the politicians go down the fictional policy path.
 

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
667
Reaction score
24
TaiidanTomcat said:
beachhead1973 said:
kcran567 said:
2) Canada doesnt need a strike/light bomber aircraft capability like the F-35 offers, it needs a patrol/fighter aircraft.

this

I wonder why your military thinks otherwise? Do you think it was Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, or even the troops fighting in Afghanistan? Could that be Why your military thinks its needs an aircraft capable of fighting in foreign and hostile environments? I hate to break it to you Canada, but you have never been a country that takes all your toys and goes home. Your air force is good for more than turning jet fuel into noise over the arctic. So realize you are an adult nation that is part of many international organizations (UN, NATO, Etc) that force you to have military commitments outside your own borders.

Well like the article says, Canada is willing to take a back seat and let the US conduct all the "shock and awe" strike bombing campaigns. Maybe its a good policy, I think Canada wants to be the North American Switzerland, but that's just fantasy. Why buy a very expensive F-35 when Canada just wants a token force to show up in any US led bombing campaign?




Abraham Gubler said:
Apophenia said:
That patrol/fighter aircraft emphasis has more to do with current government priorities than the Canadian Forces.

This is a cross that Canada, like Australia, has to bear. Being that a considerable (ie overwhelming majority) of the public policy debate is dominated by relativists when it comes to defence policy they invent pretty ridiculous reasonings to try and avoid the reality of international security. Which includes patrolling the underpopulated, inhospitable parts of the country. In Canada’s case it is the Arctic north which at least has a nearby nasty (Russia) though of course is so inhospitable to human activity that the idea of any military activity there (beyond missiles passing overhead 50km above the earth) is ridiculous. Of course the noise made by the relativists is also welcomed by the far right extremists who see a full scale invasion of the Arctic north as an actual possibility and in amongst their Fortress Canada craziness welcome the idea of a “patrol fighter”.

So the professional defence community who simply want to maintain a flexible, balanced force and actually fight the missions they get (international security) try and accommodate this policy pontificating with minimal disruption. So if a “patrol fighter” for the Arctic north is mandated then make it a high survivability strike fighter (F-35) that can do the made up mission and also the real ones. The problem of course arises when an unholy trinity of ignorance between the public policy talking heads, far right crazies and belligerent ignorants in the mass media reaches fever pitch and the reasoned voices of the military are drowned out and the politicians go down the fictional policy path.



Does the F-35 have an ABM capability? I've seen videos of the DAS tracking ballistic missiles. If it is a planned capability, the Canadians are going to want that, they just want it at a MUCH lower price.


bobbymike said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
beachhead1973 said:
kcran567 said:
2) Canada doesnt need a strike/light bomber aircraft capability like the F-35 offers, it needs a patrol/fighter aircraft.

this

I wonder why your military thinks otherwise? Do you think it was Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, or even the troops fighting in Afghanistan? Could that be Why your military thinks its needs an aircraft capable of fighting in foreign and hostile environments? I hate to break it to you Canada, but you have never been a country that takes all your toys and goes home. Your air force is good for more than turning jet fuel into noise over the arctic. So realize you are an adult nation that is part of many international organizations (UN, NATO, Etc) that force you to have military commitments outside your own borders.
You are correct sir! I spoke to the Commander of CFB Edmonton and asked about the F-35 the word he kept repeating was future interoperability with our allies


Cant they just buy a silent Hornet with the F-35 avionics? Canada may say they want to have interoperability and all that, but its just lip service. Trust me, Canada is wanting a patrol/fighter aircraft and is content letting the US get blamed internationally for everything when it doesn't work out right. I'm not saying its fair, its just the way it is.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
319
kcran567 said:
Well like the article says, Canada is willing to take a back seat and let the US conduct all the "shock and awe" strike bombing campaigns. Maybe its a good policy, I think Canada wants to be the North American Switzerland, but that's just fantasy. Why buy a very expensive F-35 when Canada just wants a token force to show up in any US led bombing campaign?

Are you talking about the same Canada that showed up to ODS with an entire fighter wing? Sure they aren’t buying B-52s and AWACS but Canada has pulled more than their weight in offensive combat power in international missions they support.

kcran567 said:
Cant they just buy a silent Hornet with the F-35 avionics? Canada may say they want to have interoperability and all that, but its just lip service.

Well they can’t buy something that doesn’t exist. I think you may be referring to Canada under the previous Liberal government (a party that doesn’t seem to exsist anymore). Since then the Canadians have put in place a “Canada First” policy which has seen a significant boost to their combat power. Plus despite the name is more about Canada playing a part as an international partner to the USA in global security rather than a blue helmet, every UN mission bleeding heart.

kcran567 said:
Trust me, Canada is wanting a patrol/fighter aircraft and is content letting the US get blamed internationally for everything when it doesn't work out right. I'm not saying its fair, its just the way it is.

I won’t trust your opinion because you’re yet to provide any indication in this forum it is more formed than rumour and innuendo. Canada like most customer nations is having some grime thoughts over F-35 because of the schedule delays and growing cost. But the RCAF certainly want it for its combat capability and their government remains committed at the core to a capable defence force.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
kcran567 said:
Cant they just buy a silent Hornet with the F-35 avionics?

So the KPMG report says the JSF will be $88 million a piece. As of 2012 a Super Hornet is $67 million, and the price is set to increase as the line continues to slow. It does not include the 2.1 million targeting pod, weapons pylons, or any of the other nifty extras that turn the Super Hornet into a warplane, as opposed to an Airshow flyer.

A very small percentage of the JSF price is the actual airframe. The rest is engine and avionics. This is my way of trying to tell you the silent hornet would cost near $100 million dollars, and only Canada would be buying them-- thus you are the ones fronting the development costs. There seems to be this idea that the cost of the F-35s advanced avionics just disappears to near nothing if only applied to a different aircraft, and that just isn't the case. This has been said in multiple threads on this very forum. Its Avionics that cost the most-- welcome to the 21st century. You will not be getting fine wine on a cheep beer budget. There are no free rides, No matter how much you think you can trick the US Government into doing all the hard work, Boeing will expect to be paid. They are funny like that.

If you want to sit at the big boy table, you will pay big boy prices. If want out of the big boy club that means extricating yourself from a lot of commitments. Commitments that actually help Canada save a lot of money on defense in the long run, Commitments that mean that Canada is privy to important information and international decisions not to mention international prestige and respect.

You may want Canada to be Switzerland. Canada does not. I understand that I am some stupid yankee but I am floored that people from there don't seem to realize the huge military commitment that Canada made in the Great War, How Canada lost more people per capita than any allied nation in WWII and was practically a super power by wars end, then Canada fought in Korea: I'll let wiki take it from here because they say it better than I can

Since 1947, Canadian military units have participated in more than 200 operations worldwide, and completed 72 international operations. Canadian soldiers, sailors, and aviators came to be considered world-class professionals through conspicuous service during these conflicts and the country's integral participation in NATO during the Cold War, First Gulf War, Kosovo War, and in United Nations Peacekeeping operations, such as the Suez Crisis, Golan Heights, Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Libya. Canada maintained an aircraft carrier from 1957 to 1970 during the Cold War, which never saw combat but participated in patrols during the Cuban Missile Crisis
Battles which are particularly notable to the Canadian military include the Battle of Vimy Ridge, the Dieppe Raid, the Battle of Ortona, the Battle of Passchendaele, the Normandy Landings, the Battle for Caen, the Battle of the Scheldt, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic, the strategic bombing of German cities, and more recently the Battle of Medak Pocket, in Croatia.
At the end of the Second World War, Canada possessed the third-largest navy and fourth-largest air force in the world, as well as the largest volunteer army ever fielded.

And your national sport is Hockey ;D

Know what you are and know you are not. You are Canada. You earned that. You are not Switzerland. Finally Americans are not stupid. Lack of Canadian heavy lifting in future conflicts would not go unnoticed, If only because its extremely out of character (see above, or read up on Canadian military history)

The Canadian military has said in no uncertain terms exactly what it wants-- its not "lip service," A strong "hint" of Canadian commitment might be the millions of dollars that canada has already commited to the JSF and the billions of dollars it will receive continuing the manufacture of JSF components over the coming decades.
 

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
667
Reaction score
24
Taiidan and Abraham I agree with alot of what you said. I would speculate that Canada is eventually going to accept the F-35 into service, they are after all, America's closest ally and committed equally to defense of North America and Canada of course that is without question.


But, talking to alot of Canadians, they tend to favor a "let America take care of it attitude". Is it national pride to be able to say no? is it Canadian frustration with the USA? or worries about the economy, I don't know. That's why some floated around the ridiculous idea of bringing back the Avro.


Personally, I think the F-35 is great, if not expensive. And alot of Canadians want more for what they are paying for, or they are willing to pay less and settle for super Hornets, which are still great aircraft but not an F-35.


If it was up to me, re-open the f-22 line and share the manufacturing with Canada. Update a newer Block version. I know that would never happen though.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
But, talking to alot of Canadians, they tend to favor a "let America take care of it attitude". Is it national pride to be able to say no? is it Canadian frustration with the USA? or worries about the economy, I don't know. That's why some floated around the ridiculous idea of bringing back the Avro.

And how many Canadians know much about airplanes? I will tell you in my fishing village, America, "A lot" of people don't squat about the military or airplanes in general. "A lot" is also a dubious amount. is a lot 40 percent? 51 percent or 90? Are some provinces different than others? I live in George Bush's home state. "A lot" of people around here love him. However outside this state, "A lot" of people loath him. I will tell you this "A lot" of people don't even know "how many engines" an F-35B has, and these are people that think they know airplanes...


alot of Canadians want more for what they are paying for

What a concept unique to Canada. Next I thing I know you will be telling me how they want someone else to do all the hard work while they reap the rewards.

, or they are willing to pay less and settle for super Hornets, which are still great aircraft but not an F-35

OK pay attention because this is important-- The Canadian government is going to spend 9 billion dollars on its next fighter. Whether that is 65 JSFs or 80 Super Hornets, or 50 silent hornets, that is what is going to be spent. The only variable is the cost to maintain X amount over Y amount of years, and manufacturing incentives/offsets

If it was up to me, re-open the f-22 line and share the manufacturing with Canada. Update a newer Block version. I know that would never happen though.

Upgraded F-22? sounds cheap. And Again we don't "share" for free.

Canada has money, its not some 3rd world upstart that the west is lavishing supplying. Get over yourselves, stop acting like victims, and pay your dues-- for a relatively small purchase Canada is getting lots of jobs and perks and naturally they are kicking and screaming like its their first day away from mom at kindergarten.
 

thrax

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
20
Reaction score
5
going off topic by why US ( Lockheed) doesnt introduce a 'wattered down' version of the F-22 for export (with F100-110 engines px) like the old F-16/79 project? Most off the closest allies really need a twin engined air-superiority aircraft.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
4
thrax said:
going off topic by why US ( Lockheed) doesnt introduce a 'wattered down' version of the F-22 for export (with F100-110 engines px) like the old F-16/79 project? Most off the closest allies really need a twin engined air-superiority aircraft.
You mean besides the fact that almost no one wanted the F-16/79 (or the F-20 for that matter)? ::)
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
2,945
TaiidanTomcat said:
But, talking to alot of Canadians, they tend to favor a "let America take care of it attitude". Is it national pride to be able to say no? is it Canadian frustration with the USA? or worries about the economy, I don't know. That's why some floated around the ridiculous idea of bringing back the Avro.

And how many Canadians know much about airplanes? I will tell you in my fishing village, America, "A lot" of people don't squat about the military or airplanes in general. "A lot" is also a dubious amount. is a lot 40 percent? 51 percent or 90? Are some provinces different than others? I live in George Bush's home state. "A lot" of people around here love him. However outside this state, "A lot" of people loath him. I will tell you this "A lot" of people don't even know "how many engines" an F-35B has, and these are people that think they know airplanes...


alot of Canadians want more for what they are paying for

What a concept unique to Canada. Next I thing I know you will be telling me how they want someone else to do all the hard work while they reap the rewards.

, or they are willing to pay less and settle for super Hornets, which are still great aircraft but not an F-35

OK pay attention because this is important-- The Canadian government is going to spend 9 billion dollars on its next fighter. Whether that is 65 JSFs or 80 Super Hornets, or 50 silent hornets, that is what is going to be spent. The only variable is the cost to maintain X amount over Y amount of years, and manufacturing incentives/offsets

If it was up to me, re-open the f-22 line and share the manufacturing with Canada. Update a newer Block version. I know that would never happen though.

Upgraded F-22? sounds cheap. And Again we don't "share" for free.

Canada has money, its not some 3rd world upstart that the west is lavishing supplying. Get over yourselves, stop acting like victims, and pay your dues-- for a relatively small purchase Canada is getting lots of jobs and perks and naturally they are kicking and screaming like its their first day away from mom at kindergarten.

As a Canadian we are all not 'kicking and screaming' the same side of the political spectrum as in the US that sees any dollar spent on advanced defense technology/weapons are the ones making the noise. Pro-defense Canadians support the program.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
319
thrax said:
going off topic by why US ( Lockheed) doesnt introduce a 'wattered down' version of the F-22 for export (with F100-110 engines px) like the old F-16/79 project? Most off the closest allies really need a twin engined air-superiority aircraft.

Because it would have cost $1-2 billion just to develop an F-22 without the sensitive technology onboard that the USA didn’t want exported. The issue wasn’t the engines but structures and systems onboard that would reveal how to make certain technologies that the USA did not want revealed. Further the ‘closest allies don’t really need twin engine air-superiority aircraft they need a high survivability, high lethality networked strike fighter. The F-35 will provide this capability which is why everyone is buying it.
 

Similar threads

Top