Canada to buy F-35s for $ 9 to 16 Billion

What ever Canada buys, speaking as a model builder, please, PLEASE come up with a better camo scheme then two shades of gray
I have a shop full of modern military aircraft and guess what colors they are, just different shades of gray. I know, it what works, but man I get tired of that color.
ok,I done with my dumb rant

Originally posted by Canada_EH

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Tactically, like in a strike mission, the F-35s VTOL capabilities will become very useful in CF strike missions.

Again to be clear the Canadian F-35 will be CTOL not VTOL.

I should think so. Buying the VTOL version would be even more ridiculous.

"Let's buy something that has less range, consumes more fuel on takeoff, has a smaller payload, and has ten times as much stuff to break in the very expensive and maintenance-intensive engine assembly! Sure, we have no practical need for it, but it looks cool!"

... Watch them turn around next week and change the contract for a VTOL version.... *finds some wood to knock on*

I must plead ignorance on Canadian aircraft requirements, but I would imagine that stealth is of little or no importance seeing as ther aircraft will be patroling friendly airspace. I know this will sound like bias but why not go with the EF or the Rafale, they are state of the art twin engined planes which will not only cover current requirements but are far more suited to switching roles than the jack of all trades 35 (not to mention far cheaper to buy and maintain).

Jensy

reply to post by jensy


I don't know what all the requirements for the RCAF are, but one of the main ones that I know of was the need for having twin engines (which I believe some one already mentioned in this thread). When the Minister of Nation Defence was asked about this, his reply was something like 'engines are better now'.

The more I think about this the more bothered I am by it. For $9 billion CDN we could get 150 F-18E/F's or 100 EF-2000's or Rafale's. I don't know how many pilots there are in the RCAF, but either way it's more bang for the buck.

Leave it to politicians to go least economical option...

I think Canada made the right decision. Suck it up, bitches.

Australia bought 24 SH with a support contract for approximately 6 billion dollars. 65/24 * 6 = 16.25 billion dollars so the claim that the SH is cheaper is somewhat dubious but it is unclear what the support contract terms were. This doesn't count all the difficulties the F-35 has during development though and possibility for even more cost overruns.

Single engines are safe enough, and as Richard Price said in another thread, what kills one engine will probably kill both and the plane would likely crash anyway (ask him not me).

F-35 kills F-16 aero performance if you levelize fuel fractions. Kills SH in the same way. Kills F-16 / SH in most other ways also, like RCS, avionics. No point talking about Mach 2 capability in the F-16 since in reality it does not get there in any logical scenario it's either carrying CFT where it can't go fast in the first place, or you run out of fuel. SH sucks aerodynamically anyways so that can't be an advantage, and looses in every possibly way except delivery schedule or number of engines to the F-35.

Ageed that F-15 would be nice. Better aero performance but no stealth and might require more maintenance (remains to be seen, stealth needs lots). Claiming that stealth is useless due to special radars is as absurd as claiming that stealth makes a plane invisible - about as logical as Eric Palmer or chemtrails.

Also I don't really care about this topic a whole lot anymore so you can attempt to debunk if you like just don't expect a reply. Been discussed at length elsewhere and the discussion usually goes in circles like it has here. Everything posted in this thread about the F-35 has been posted before, including this reply.

[edit on 17/7/2010 by C0bzz]