The F-35 is not dead

[AuxBatOn]

Why is the Rafale better than the JSF?

[trampbike]

F-35 is a piece of crap that nobody wants

At least 3000 are to be sold...

the 22 is not for sale.

Even if it was, why the hell would Canada want to buy it?

[iflyforpie]

Why is the Rafale better than the JSF?

Easy... two engines.

[Gravol]

Under that pretext we should just take the moth balls out of our F101s .

[AuxBatOn]

Why is the Rafale better than the JSF?

Easy... two engines.

Really? You qualify Fighters on the number of engines they have?

Pretty shallow analysis...

[Rockie]

Why is the Rafale better than the JSF?

Easy... two engines.

Really? You qualify Fighters on the number of engines they have?

Pretty shallow analysis...

Unless you only have one and then lose it. Then the fighter becomes $137 million worth of non-flying junk of no use to anyone especially in the far north.

[Moose47]

G'day Caracrane

"Buy Rafale, plus they want to assemble it here in Canada. F-35 is a piece of crap that nobody wants and the 22 is not for sale."

I'd like to hear more of your experiences as a top gun fighter pilot. How else would you be able so make such an informed statement. Do my SAR unit a favour "GET LOST!"

Cheers...Chris

[AuxBatOn]

Unless you only have one and then lose it. Then the fighter becomes $137 million worth of non-flying junk of no use to anyone especially in the far north.

Just like your countermeasures have to be efficient. If they are not and you get shot at, the fighter becomes a $90 million (not $137 million, look at what the Aussies paid) worth of non-flying junk of no use to anyone.

I don't think 2 engines should be the sole reason we don't buy the JSF. It could be a factor, but definitely not the only factor.

[AuxBatOn]

If frosti is so convinced that the F-35 is perfectly safe for high North ops, lets get one, and he can fly it all year long, based out of Tuk, or Holman, maybe Iqaluit, somewhere nice and remote.

Because I can guarantee the day that the single engine farts once, he will be praying that he had a twin...

I may well be flying one and I am very comfortable with that fact.

Military aviation is a balance between risk and rewards. No venture is ever going to be 100% safe. Survivability (both at home and in combat), effectiveness (both at home and in combat in our primary mission, as dictated by the government), relevance (now and in 40 years) balanced against our most likely threat and other factors will determine what's best for us.

Up North, if we have problems that prevent us from safely landing on a runway, we have an ejection seat. In that ejection seat, we have a seat pack with a sleeping bag, mitts, heavy socks, saw, shovel, etc. Also, when we fly over cold land, we wear what we would if we were to spend the night (i.e.: Big winter jacket, bunny pants, extreme cold weather boots, etc). On top of that, we have a survival vest filled with the necessary kit to be found + some basic survival kit (Personal Locator Beacon (121.5, 243.0, 416), flares, 9mm gun, water, first aid kit, etc). All of this is enough to make you go through 24 hrs.

Having experienced the Arctic during survival training (with only what I would be wearing if I ejected), I can tell you that, even though it is not comfortable, it is sufficient to survive 24 hours. After that, the deal is that you'd have a rescue party sent towards you or some more kit dropped by a Herc (hopefully with a SAR Tech).

[trampbike]

What Canada needs is a capable, multi-role, twin engine aircraft. Be it the Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafael, F/A-18E Super Hornet, F-15E, or another model. What we do not need is another less than capable, over-priced, incapable piece of crap.

Please, enlighten us as to why the F35 is an incapable piece of crap. I'd love to also read about how the other aircrafts you mentionned are going to fulfil efficiently RCAF's mandate for the next 40 years or so.

[AuxBatOn]

It is capable, it is not overpriced and it is definitely not a piece of crap.

The Super Hornet is a 1990-era aircraft, so are the Typhoon, Rafale & Strike Eagle.

If we are to go 4th Gen, we should go with the Strike Eagle. But you won't like the price...

[shurshot17]

I took a trip up to cold lake, had a tour of the base.. I personally asked a few of the fighter pilots of their preference in Canadas new fighter jet. I had 3 of the 4 i asked all say F-35, the 4th said he wanted Typhoon (said his personal favorite fighter), I then asked why single over twin engine the reasons they gave me are

1) Speed isn't a major issue like it used to be, Missiles are faster than jets, and stealth is a huge asset in today's combat.
2) With twins, if something breaks in one of the engines, often a blade can get punched through the casing and damage the second engine.
3) All new engines like the F-35's, all go through testing to find weak spots and problems (F-18 had same issues) but currently the f-35 single engine is proven to be the most reliable NEW engine to date.


Now before anyone argues with this, This is what I was told by three 4 wing fighter pilots. I am going off their word cause they are the most expert opinion I have heard.

[Gravol]

It is capable, it is not overpriced and it is definitely not a piece of crap.

The Super Hornet is a 1990-era aircraft, so are the Typhoon, Rafale & Strike Eagle.

If we are to go 4th Gen, we should go with the Strike Eagle. But you won't like the price...

The arm chair professionals don't generally factor any of that into the equation. They; like good rank and file cbc gladiators, are told to hate anything and everything about a fighter they know nothing about.

If yourself, and frosti are both content with ejecting, and quite possibly freezing to death in the high arctic, because you were flying a single engine death trap, more power to you.

What Canada needs is a capable, multi-role, twin engine aircraft. Be it the Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafael, F/A-18E Super Hornet, F-15E, or another model. What we do not need is another less than capable, over-priced, incapable piece of crap.

Yes, because the Viper was such a failure. Would you eat your own words if the JSF shot down Mr. / Mrs bad guy , a twin engine fighter, in the high arctic? I mean really, what if they lose the second engine? We should really be focused on building a fighter with three engines.

Explain to me why Auxbat would want to take any of the above AC into combat instead of an F35? He already explained that the cost benefit to a twin is negligible given the amount of risk already being weighed, so what else do you bring to the table?

So now that you've gotten the twin of your choice, you now lack the sophistication and next gen guts the F35 brings to the table. At least you have your second burner though right? Kind of useless when you have a few K-77Ms providing you with the worlds quickest and most efficient colonoscopy.

[oldncold]

MY PREVIOUS POINT NOW CONFIRMED as we debate as per nausea the fighter jocks are still flying 1980 jets as we drive to work in 2012-14 cars STOP FUK N AROUND BUY THE DAMN F35 BE DONE WITH IT AND AS LONG AS CANADA HAS OIL THE YANKS WILL SUPPORT THE F35S WITH THERE F22'S THOUGH MY OWN 2BITS IT TO TAX OIL 2BUCKS A BARREL UNTIL THE YANKS AGREE TO SELL US THE F22 . IM SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING A RUN AT THE CONSERVATIVE PM JOB WHEN STEPHEN RETIRES. ONE OF MY PLANKS WILL BE CANADA CAPITAL DEFENSE PROGRAM . TO GET US CLOSE TO THE PLACE WHERE WE DONT FK AROUND IN OTHER NATIONS BK YARDS BUT NO ONE WILL WANT TO DO THE SAME TO US

[azimuthaviation]

stealth is a huge asset in today's combat

Whose radar do they need to evade? The Taliban's or one of the five African countries that western air forces have been deployed to in the last few years?

[trampbike]

Whose radar do they need to evade? The Taliban's or one of the five African countries that western air forces have been deployed to in the last few years?

1. No Canadians Hornets were deployed to Afghanistan.
2. I don't think they plan to deploy any F-35 in the past. Looks like they plan to use it in the future instead (sounds like a good plan to me).

[azimuthaviation]

Looks like they plan to use it in the future

On whom exactly?

[trampbike]

I don't know, I was not there when the future happened...

[azimuthaviation]

You really think that Canada (or any other western country for that matter) is going to engage a country with a sophisticated air force and air defense system that would require a need for stealth technology? Its such a waste to argue over which piece of overpriced and underutilized hardware we should get. All of the capabilities of these aircraft will never be used so practicality would dictate that this aircraft is useless. In 2014 what is the point of having these machines? Couldnt the money be better spent elsewhere?


Its ironic. While Canada was spending 350 million dollars supporting the NTC rats (who have been repaying the favor by demolishing allied soldiers gravesites, killing westerners, seizing oil, and of course the attack on the US diplomatic mission), my little hometown in Northern Alberta was in the process of bringing in a doctor from Libya. One of hundreds of Libyan born and trained doctors practicing here, many of them serving rural communities which otherwise might not have any or be woefully understaffed. A developed country has to import doctors from the third world, yet simultaneously spending hundreds of millions to bomb the very same same country? And youre arguing over whether or not to spend an extra 45 million per aircraft for improved stealth capability? Some priorities need to change.

[shurshot17]

You really think that Canada (or any other western country for that matter) is going to engage a country with a sophisticated air force and air defense system that would require a need for stealth technology? Its such a waste to argue over which piece of overpriced and underutilized hardware we should get. All of the capabilities of these aircraft will never be used so practicality would dictate that this aircraft is useless. In 2014 what is the point of having these machines? Couldnt the money be better spent elsewhere?


Its ironic. While Canada was spending 350 million dollars supporting the NTC rats (who have been repaying the favor by demolishing allied soldiers gravesites, killing westerners, seizing oil, and of course the attack on the US diplomatic mission), my little hometown in Northern Alberta was in the process of bringing in a doctor from Libya. One of hundreds of Libyan born and trained doctors practicing here, many of them serving rural communities which otherwise might not have any or be woefully understaffed. A developed country has to import doctors from the third world, yet simultaneously spending hundreds of millions to bomb the very same same country? And youre arguing over whether or not to spend an extra 45 million per aircraft for improved stealth capability? Some priorities need to change.

Thats not the point... The point of militarys are, WHAT IF SOMETHING DOES HAPPEN. Id rather have the best equipment available than have sticks and stones and hope for the best.

[careerpilot?]

Does anybody not see the parallels of what Russia is currently doing in the Crimea to the historical precedence of Germany in the 1930s?

1936 - Germany violates the treaty of Versailles by reoccupying the Rhineland. The world does nothing.
2008 - Russia invades Georgia. NATO does nothing.

1938 - Germany enacts "Anschluss" with Austria, then invades the Sudentenland. The world does nothing.
2014 - Russia invades Crimea. NATO does nothing.

1939 - Germany takes the rest of Czechoslovakia. Again, the world does nothing.
2014/2015 - Russia takes the rest of Ukraine (?). Will NATO respond? Militarily, not likely.

1939 - Germany + Russia invade Poland. Europe finally responds, and the Second World War begins.
2014/2015 - Russia invades Poland?? Who knows.

And in an unrelated yet funny coincidence - Germany hosted the Olympics in 1936, just as they were beginning their expansion. Who just hosted the 2014 Olympics? Cue twilight zone music now...

My point is, all this talk about our future enemy is ridiculous. Did anyone here predict a year ago (or even 2 months ago) that Russia would invade the Crimea? In my opinion, Putin is testing the waters and gauging the reaction of NATO to his expansion (just as Hitler did). Can anyone predict that they won't continue their expansion and try to reinstate the old Soviet Union in 2-3 years' time? Think about it. Putin could make the ultimate gamble with Poland: Being a NATO country, NATO would have to respond if Russia invaded Poland. However, if Putin gambles that NATO won't respond, he could kill two birds with one stone: Annex Poland, and break up the NATO alliance (make no mistake, NATO would fold if they refused to help Poland). If NATO does respond, Putin could just pull back. NATO won't pursue the war any further once Russian forces are out of Poland. (Incidentally, Hitler gave these exact orders to his forces when he took the Rhineland: If the French respond, pull out immediately)

How can NATO respond if our equipment is outdated and falling apart? The Russians always had (and always will have) the numbers. NATO has always relied on having better technology than Russia. Now we are talking about taking a step backward until we are on par, even potentially lower than, the Russians technologically. And, remember, Canada is not the only NATO country having this debate: the same debate is going on in several NATO countries. Where is the deterrent for Russia?

Bottom line: Stop thinking all of our future wars are going to be asymmetrical like Afghanistan or Libya. Is the scenario above a far flung, worst case scenario? You bet, but it could still happen. In fact, I would argue it is more likely to happen if we believe it won't and neuter our militaries, as we lose the deterrent effect. We can't predict what will happen in 1 or 2 years, let alone in 20 or 30.

Sometimes I am just blown away by how easily we forget the lessons of history...

[azimuthaviation]

Stop thinking all of our future wars are going to be asymmetrical like Afghanistan or Libya

But going to war for Canada always has and always will be a choice. Even in the example that you gave it would be Canada's choice to join the war or not. What if Canada doesnt spend the billions on F-35's and chooses not to join these foreign campaigns which never has shown to be a winning proposition? That seems the most far fetched scenario of all, unfortunately.

[AuxBatOn]

Because we are part of military alliances and that's what the government decided. Read the Canada First Defence Strategy.

[azimuthaviation]

Canada is still bound by the covenant it made to that irrelevant cold war era organisation? For what reason in 2014? What has NATO ever done operationally? Provided air support in third world conflicts while outsourcing the ground fighting to the locals? The KLA, the NTC, Northern Alliance. Is that what NATO was created for? Is that what Canada signed up for? Why does Canada have to constantly adapt to NATO's ever changing mandate which is dictated by superpowers with their own agendas? Its obvious what they have to gain, financially, militarily, politically, but why do we have to pick up the tab?

[AuxBatOn]

This debate is well above this debate: Given our current mandate, what is the best fighter for our bucks?