DWCAce 19 Posted January 31, 2011 http://www.nationalpost.com/Refuelling+issue+Tories+controversial+fighter/4193247/story.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+daddyairplanes 8,670 Posted January 31, 2011 huh, woulda thought they would go with Super bugs as they are similar to what they have now and just as capable for most missions F-35 is tasked for as well as MORE capable than Lightning 2 in the air to air interception mission esp at home. nice to see boneheaded defence officials aren't only limited to the US and UK but common amongst all the NATO nations! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted February 1, 2011 I really don't understand this ... it ends up driving up the costs because you're making yet ANOTHER variant. It would be different if Canada was planning on force projection, but I don't see that here. If you're talking mainly just continental defense, and you wanted to save money, Super Hornets would be cheaper and more effective overall I think because the logistics and support pipeline is already partially established. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nesher 629 Posted February 1, 2011 was it me or the article kept going over and over the same thing... I stopped in the middle my fair guess is LM will create the variant the Canadians need, probably will cost a bit more but it will save them the money instead of buying new tankers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derk 265 Posted February 1, 2011 Another action by the media using big calibre HE to fire on a minor issue. And the solution is simple: since only 25 of our F16's are flyable at the moment (yes, you read it correctly, the 16 th economy in the world can only keep 25 fighters in the air....) , Canada can have our KDC 10's with the right systems for a bargain price (the way the Germans got our Orions...... ) Houdoe, Derk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted February 1, 2011 Too bad it wasn't the other way around, because refitting a boom tanker with hose-and-drogue is easy and not that costly. However, I can't believe this will be the only time this comes up. There are many countries out there that don't use boom tankers that may not want to pay for the C model's extras. F-16 operators won't worry, but all current Hornet/Super Hornet operators must. Was Australia going to get the A model? Actually, thanks to their Wedgetails and F-111s I guess they already had boom tankers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DWCAce 19 Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) LM recently just resumed testing of an IFR probe on an F-16. I'm sure something can be made for the F-35. http://www.f-16.net/news_article4163.html Edited February 1, 2011 by DWCAce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+daddyairplanes 8,670 Posted February 1, 2011 Another action by the media using big calibre HE to fire on a minor issue. And the solution is simple: since only 25 of our F16's are flyable at the moment (yes, you read it correctly, the 16 th economy in the world can only keep 25 fighters in the air....) , Canada can have our KDC 10's with the right systems for a bargain price (the way the Germans got our Orions...... ) Houdoe, Derk like i said nice to see America and Britian aint the only ones screwin up. Super Bugs and King Vipers (ala what UAE and India are getting) should be substituted for F-35 and next generation ARMs used for SEAD/DEAD. for air to air i like Super Bug with 12 AIM-9X or Amraam or combo thereof each vs F-35 with .... with.. what its carry? oh yeah it'll see the whole freakin battlefield. o/t next generation Harms has me thinking, B-52H + CALCM with cluster warheads and AGM-88 seeker = big a$$ Weasel! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted February 1, 2011 Well unlike the F-16 the F-35B/C already had that because only the USAF uses booms. So all it would mean is an F-35A with a B/C forward fuselage and the boom receptacle deactivated. As I don't know the inside of the plane, I can't say if that will be easy or hard to do, but it has to be feasible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rambler 1-1 9 Posted February 2, 2011 This whole deal is really ambitious, but rubbish. It seems that Canada doesn't necessarily have a specific mission in mind, somebody just decided that we need some new fighter jets because our Hornets are, well, dropping like flies. The F-35 wasn't really chosen because of it's specific abilities, but because it's new, multi-role, and likely to remain in service for a long time. If we were really serious about defending our airspace, we would have Typhoons or, more likely, F-22s, because of the pressure Canada gets from the U.S. I'm not complaining, the F-35 is cool beyond belief, but do we really need them? For the work our air force does, we could do better with some newer F-16s, Super Hornets or Eurofighters, all of which are quite a bit cheaper. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted February 2, 2011 Well unlike the F-16 the F-35B/C already had that because only the USAF uses booms. So all it would mean is an F-35A with a B/C forward fuselage and the boom receptacle deactivated. As I don't know the inside of the plane, I can't say if that will be easy or hard to do, but it has to be feasible. Feasibility isn't the issue, it's cost effectiveness because you're having to design and build yet another variant. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast 153 Posted February 2, 2011 Must admit I agree with this why the Canuck's didn't go for the F-18E/F or the Eurofighter instead of the Bomb truck that is the F-35 because it has ooooo Stealth probably... It's funny when they looked at the F-16 F-18 they bought the F-18 besides it having Sparrow built in etc they bought it because it had twin Engines for safety... and I must admit now they are buying single motor jets... Must feel lonely over the Artic wastes on only one engine... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nixou 25 Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Must admit I agree with this why the Canuck's didn't go for the F-18E/F or the Eurofighter instead of the Bomb truck that is the F-35 because it has ooooo Stealth probably... It's not to sell the national product but everyone here seems to forget that the rafale is stealth designed and has stealth features (like the absorbant paint) and shape studied to minimize radar detection. Sure its far from being an f35 i guess. but, I have read somewhere that it its radar image is 20 time lower than a Mirage2000 (or F16) So the intermediary between Eurofighter(low stealth) and F-35 (big stealth) would probably be the rafale while being cheaper than the F-35. But then lets not forget that aircraft are often chosen because of politics more than by its caracteristics. I hardly see Canada chosing anything else than an American solution. Edited February 2, 2011 by Nix Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted February 2, 2011 Only problem with Rafale is it's just as short-legged as the Hornets they have now. I've never seen an photo of a Rafale on operations without 3 BIG tanks underneath and that means that much less ordnance. Perhaps the better solution would be to get their tankers converted to have booms? Or even to wait until the USAF picks a new tanker (which if it's not Boeing will naturally result in more Congressional protest over jobs and blah blah blah ) and then a buy a few off that order to make it cheaper and sell the existing tankers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EricJ 3,937 Posted February 3, 2011 huh, woulda thought they would go with Super bugs as they are similar to what they have now and just as capable for most missions F-35 is tasked for as well as MORE capable than Lightning 2 in the air to air interception mission esp at home. nice to see boneheaded defence officials aren't only limited to the US and UK but common amongst all the NATO nations! They already looked at it and said it wasn't "mature enough" for their air force at least that's what i read somewhere though it may be just op-ed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+daddyairplanes 8,670 Posted February 3, 2011 and F-35 is more mature? (said the guy using emoticons!) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 144 Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) Our Air Force has been getting screwed by moronic "decisions" since the Avro Arrow, this merely reaffirms that the current thinking is still faithful to those fine times. Edited February 13, 2011 by Atreides Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smokey799 1 Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) Hey Guys, been keeping my eye on this for a while and thought I'd weigh in... Ever since the Conservatives announced they are going to go ahead with the purchase every pundit with a half a brain has been getting on the soap box to say JSF isn't the right plane for Canada....Give me a break. First, the gov't hasn't even submitted any formal request/contract, to my knowledge. Second, don't you think the guys writing up specs and contracts at DND headquarters are going to know the difference between 'boom' refueling and 'hose and drogue'? Third, JSF is in Development! Now, I'm not in the aeronautical industry, and I sure as hell don't work for LM, but I'd be willing to bet a few bucks that Canada will be able to order the 'Air Force' variant with the probe. Fourth, single engine a big problem? I don't know, but engine tech from the 80's (current Hornet engine)versus the 00's (JSF)...I'm thinking the single engine won't be an issue. If I wanted be an ass I'd say something along the lines that two engines didn't help the Hornet that crashed in Lethbridge last summer (I guess I kind of just did). Personally, I'm kind of torn as far as which is the best fighter for Canada. I think JSF is going to be an excellent piece of kit, but can we afford it? Are 65 airframes going to be enough? Will the gov't be there long enough to even start the formal process? Just my two cents. Smokey Edited February 14, 2011 by smokey799 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PinkPanther 0 Posted February 19, 2011 Gotta defend that North Pole! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
