• Canada: govt 'did not consider alternatives to F-35', then contradicts itself.
    71 replies, posted
[QUOTE] [t]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dVh4Kh6yfuc/TEC7gzClNuI/AAAAAAAAAmQ/bZPaA3DRBRU/s1600/FA2010-0218-03.jpg[/t] A statement from National Defence says the head of the air force misspoke when saying the Harper government had yet to direct the air force to look at aircraft other than the contentious F-35 stealth fighter. The newly appointed commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force said in an interview last week with The Canadian Press that he's assigned a staff officer to work with a public works agency overseeing the CF-18 replacement program, but a thorough examination of other possible aircraft would require a more detailed study by military planners. And the order has not yet been given. "So, I'm waiting to see exactly what is going to be required and we're going to be supporting whatever kind of information they'd like to have," said Lt.-Gen. Yvan Blondin. The promise to look at "other options" was paramount to the government's response to auditor general Michael Ferguson, who last spring accused National Defence and Public Works of publicly low-balling the cost of the multibillion-dollar program and not following proper procedures. But in a statement released late Monday, the air force said "work continues on the evaluation of options" mandated by the government and that "information shared with a reporter was incorrect." It insisted work is progressing, without addressing the central question of whether other contenders such as the Super Hornet or the Eurofighter were up for consideration. "The options analysis is a full evaluation of choices, not simply a refresh of the work that was done before," said the statement. "This detailed evaluation will provide the best available information about the range of choices that could do the job required." Yet, when Blondin was asked twice during the interview whether other aircraft had been considered, he replied: "No." Industry sources say competing contractors have not been asked to provide information.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/10/23/pol-cp-dnd-f-35-air-force-alternatives.html"]cbc[/URL] This is such a bad idea..
The whole F35 program is just a complete mess.
Can you get a king raptor?
It still seems to me that the reasoning behind the F-35 plans for Canada are basically 5th>4th.
What is it with the F-35 and raising controversy about its acquisition in other nations?
i wouldnt pay that much for a plane
Please buy our planes...my dad tests the engines for these.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;38177114]What is it with the F-35 and raising controversy about its acquisition in other nations?[/QUOTE] They're extremely expensive and they're extremely high-maintenance. Canada has such strike capability already and they're really pointless to buy. Sorry, Frankiscool.
I decided to watch Question Period on CPAC (basically our version of America's C-SPAN) for some reason last night, when our Minister of Public Works just completely dodged the question asked by some NDP MP asking what alternatives they were considering. It seems like she doesn't have a fucking clue what she's doing.
Avro Arrow please. :(
[QUOTE=Frankiscool!;38177254]Please buy our planes...my dad tests the engines for these.[/QUOTE] Same
Sadly the F-35 has come at the wrong point in terms of the world economy and international relations. There's no real justification for such an aircraft, especially for the USN and FAA, to be produced over say the Rafale or the Super Hornet at the moment. At least, if the F-18 must be replaced, there was no need for a super-expensive to develop and maintain stealth fighter using immature technologies that we don't even have support elements for. Political bungling, flip-flopping and lobbying have only ruined the program's name more. It's actually turned out to be an aircraft with good performance, it seems, and its initial flights seem more promising than those of the F-22, but it's just not needed. Not now.
[QUOTE=itak365;38177504]Avro Arrow please. :([/QUOTE] [IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img835/3765/avroarrowbyfatthorond4w.jpg[/IMG] It would be absolutely incredible to see this amazing machine take to the skies again, unfortunately [URL="http://www.globalnews.ca/feds+reject+bid+to+revive+avro+arrow/6442711404/story.html"]Harper already dismissed the option[/URL]...
[QUOTE=abcpea2;38177246]i wouldnt pay that much for a plane[/QUOTE] you wouldn't download an F-35
[QUOTE=Scrimp;38177024]Can you get a king raptor?[/QUOTE] the f-22? Completely different capability as an aircraft. The two aren't mutually compareable.
[QUOTE=koeniginator;38178258]you wouldn't download an F-35[/QUOTE] I would.
My god how do we get this buffoon out of office?
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;38177114]What is it with the F-35 and raising controversy about its acquisition in other nations?[/QUOTE] It's bigger than it needs to be, it's more expensive than it needs to be, and it's more complicated than it needs to be. It's a neat aircraft with some good qualities, but for the price and how complicated it is, it's not wort the payment, theres better jets out there atm.
Just buy jas 39 gripen, and you get a badass air viking :dance:
[QUOTE=Frankiscool!;38177254]Please buy our planes...my dad tests the engines for these.[/QUOTE] I think not having Canada is the least of your concerns. Every other fucking nato country is buying them. [editline]25th October 2012[/editline] Except Sweden. But they have Saab.
We don't need the F-35, the F-35 is overkill for what we'd even use it for. But we do need something to replace our F-18s they're getting too old and expensive to maintain.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;38178911]We don't need the F-35, the F-35 is overkill for what we'd even use it for. But we do need something to replace our F-18s they're getting too old and expensive to maintain.[/QUOTE] Make new ones :v:. In all seriousness though. The F-35's are going to be seen as way too big of an investment to use them in any multi-role function and they'll probably only be used for anti air and deep strikes. I'd rather risk an 18 million dollar aircraft to deal fire support, than the 400 million dollar stealth one.
Actually they should research and produce the Horten Ho 229 for service.
If we tried to build a fighter jet within 10 years it would be complete shit. It makes sense just to buy it, instead of spending hundreds of billions on developing a subpar aircraft where we would need to import 90% anyways.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;38178294]the f-22? Completely different capability as an aircraft. The two aren't mutually compareable.[/QUOTE] And nobody outside the United States is allowed to buy any.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38179917]If we tried to build a fighter jet within 10 years it would be complete shit. It makes sense just to buy it, instead of spending hundreds of billions on developing a subpar aircraft where we would need to import 90% anyways.[/QUOTE]False dilemma; there are more than the 2 options of "buy F-35" or "design and build a plane completely from scratch".
[QUOTE=GunFox;38180037]And nobody outside the United States is allowed to buy any.[/QUOTE] That too, but even if they could, I assume a lot less people would be eyeing it. In part due to the price. But mostly becauses it fullfills different capability than what mostp eople want.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;38180415]False dilemma; there are more than the 2 options of "buy F-35" or "design and build a plane completely from scratch".[/QUOTE] I was responding to the people who said build one from scratch, it wasant a false dilemma. It was a false dilemma generated by yourself. The only aircraft that would be potentially useful as a replacement would be Super hornets, the Eurofighter or Rafael. The Su-35 would also be a ideal purchase, considering Russia and Canada both have about the same geography and climate up north.. but then you have the tactical issue of logistics and the US being right next door making costs low when it comes to transportation. But issues like that could be cut entirely if Canada could build them themselves, similar to India's arrangement. But once again, its a issue with conservatives and the cold war.
I still think buying some new Super Hornets would be best, though I kind of wonder how we can afford both a whole new set of jets, plus a brand new navy. Or whether we really need either, for that matter.
I'd rather pay less for a larger arrow fleet. They get 14% tax here in NS, they better use my money in an effective manner.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.