News Canada spends $9 billion for the F-35

Izack

Izack

Non sequitur
Addon Developer
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
6,664
Reaction score
14
Points
113
Location
The Wilderness, N.B.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/16/canada-jets.html

The new jets would replace an aging fleet of CF-18s that recently underwent a $2.6-billion upgrade.
Click to expand...
So...yeah. I'm amazed the Tories got away with it so easily. I personally can't see how this is a good use of money, but that's just me poking into the unknowable realm of military and politics.

Thoughts? Was this a stupid idea? Brilliant?

It may not be the best investment ever, but hey, I know I'm going to the air show at Shearwater at some point if they show up. :)
 
Last edited:
Izack said:
I'd hardly call the CF-18 or LAV-III WWII weapons...
Click to expand...

That's exactly what they are - state of the art weapon systems. The CF-18, while getting long in the tooth (and ready for replacement by the time the F-35s are delviered), is an excellent fighter aircraft and it's still the backbone of the US navy. The new super hornets haven't even come close to replacing all of them yet. The LAV III is the standard for wheeled APCs and it's performed very well in Afghanistan. I'm thrilled that they've gone ahead with the F-35. It's about time our military personnel got new equipment before the old stuff is falling apart and ready for the trash heap. This is just one more reason that I'm thrilled with the government we have now.

They did the right thing in making an informed choice based on the needs of the military rather than wasting the time and money of going through a protracted bidding process that would either result in the purchase of the F-35 years later than 2016 or ending up with an inferior aircraft.
 
im exadureating but compaired to other countrys weapons ours are not that good
 
Mantis said:
It's about time our military personnel got new equipment before the old stuff is falling apart and ready for the trash heap.
Click to expand...

Now if only north korea knew that too....

Anyway i am glad to see the country to the north getting some new toys to play with.
 
Ya, but you acquire weapons based on how threatened you feel. I don't think Russia or U.S will attack Canada anytime soon ;)
 
SiberianTiger said:
You should be thankful for Su-50 entering the market, or the price could be even higher.
Click to expand...

Don't really know. Buying non-NATO compatible equipment means you have issues with logistics - you need compatible ordnance and such - which means that the end cost may end up higher. Unless you're already a Russian equipment buyer, it's a hard call.
 
Ghostrider said:
One more Nickelback album and Russia and the US may not be alone.:)
Click to expand...

As long as Rush keeps pumping out albums, Canada will be safe. If they ever disband I'm afraid I'll have to run to the hills. ;)
 
Ghostrider said:
Don't really know. Buying non-NATO compatible equipment means you have issues with logistics - you need compatible ordnance and such - which means that the end cost may end up higher. Unless you're already a Russian equipment buyer, it's a hard call.
Click to expand...

Yup, but there are countries which use both, or whose purchasing choise is isn't finally decided upon yet. For them, both types are sound options, which makes the F-35 and Su-50 competitors as a matter of fact. I have seen some news of introducing a producer's discount on F-35 exactly because of that few months ago, but can't find a link.
 
Anyone who could make adaptor modules allowing Russian weaponry to be used on NATO aircraft and viceversa would be a rich man indeed, but he'd have to hide really well...
 
I'm a little disapointed by the F35 performances... Mach 1.67 seems a little slow, since the F16 can fly at Mach 2.1 (for a few minutes, its true)... and the Su-50 at Mach 2.45...
 
On top of the compatibility issues, I don't think Canada has the stones to buy a Russian aircraft, considering we're sitting right on top of the United States... :uhh:

The Su-50 hasn't even really entered the market yet anyway.
 
Also the top speed Mach number is only interesting for interceptors. For most actual combat, other figures are more important.
 
N_Molson said:
I'm a little disapointed by the F35 performances... Mach 1.67 seems a little slow, since the F16 can fly at Mach 2.1 (for a few minutes, its true)... and the Su-50 at Mach 2.45...
Click to expand...


Su-50 is more of an air superiority fighter, designed to shoot down F-22's and F-35's. Wouldn't make much sense to go for those, unless you wanna invade USA...

F-22 is an air superiority fighter. Not much of a bomber.

F-35 was designed with this in mind. It's a fighter / bomber, with CAS in mind...
 
RisingFury said:
Su-50 is more of an air superiority fighter, designed to shoot down F-22's and F-35's. Wouldn't make much sense to go for those, unless you wanna invade USA...
Click to expand...

Why? It can be just as good, or even better, at shooting down other Su-50's (and all the other Su and MiG) if such are the circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top