• Canada: govt 'did not consider alternatives to F-35', then contradicts itself.
    71 replies, posted
[QUOTE=laserguided;38186731]I can't trust Northrop Grunman's PR campaigns after what they did in Canada. But still, I never said it was not. I'm going to quote this report,[/QUOTE] Didn't we have this discussion before about how that entire article is a load of crap? It compares the completed status of one aircraft to the partially completed capabilities of another aircraft. It claims things like the the F-35 can only use one or two missiles, which was certainly true, but it was certainly true at one point, but the aircraft was still being fucking tested at the time. It is still in testing and it already can employ a fairly wide variety of munitions and still isn't finished adding additional types.
[QUOTE=GunFox;38186742]Didn't we have this discussion before about how that entire article is a load of crap?[/QUOTE] No? And how is it a load of crap, considering its cited all over the internet as a reputable source. Sure, it might be outdated but these systems were developed long before today. Since you're such a expert, and obviously more knowledgeable when it comes to aerospace engineering then high up generals, defence analysts and aerospace engineers feel free to provide you're input..
[QUOTE=laserguided;38186765]No? And how is it a load of crap, considering its cited all over the internet as a reputable source. Sure, it might be outdated but these systems were developed long before today.[/QUOTE] Can you not read the bias that bleeds out of every word in the article? What moron compares an unfinished aircraft to a finished one using the partially completed capabilities?
[QUOTE=laserguided;38186765]No? And how is it a load of crap, considering its cited all over the internet as a reputable source. Sure, it might be outdated but these systems were developed long before today. Since you're such a expert, and obviously more knowledgeable when it comes to aerospace engineering then high up generals, defence analysts and aerospace engineers feel free to provide you're input..[/QUOTE] "It's cited all over the internet" doesn't make it reputable. [editline]25th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;38186788]Can you not read the bias that bleeds out of every word in the article? What moron compares an unfinished aircraft to a finished one using the partially completed capabilities?[/QUOTE] This kind of moron. [QUOTE=laserguided;38186405]Then you're a bad person.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=GunFox;38186788]Can you not read the bias that bleeds out of every word in the article? What moron compares an unfinished aircraft to a finished one using the partially completed capabilities?[/QUOTE] Its called analysis. The F-35's capabilities have not changed much at all other then the addition of internally launched short range missiles. The thing I cited still remains the same, and is dated when it comes to the T-50 due to the fact that its referencing the Su-35 domestic. The point is: its not good for Canada, unless you think otherwise.
I don't think there is too much of a problem with the F-35, however I do think there is a problem with the F-35 for Canada, as it does not fit our needs. We are a larger country than the US by a decent margin, yet are only going to be getting 65 fighters, relatively short range ones at that. If we are going to us them to patrol our borders, we may have to put fuel tanks on them which would kinda defeat the purpose of stealth. What time is Canada going to need the first strike capability of that fighter, and when are we going to enter a war by ourselves where we need that? What happens if we lose a single fighter to engine loss or just mechanical glitches, because as is, 65 has been quoted as the absolute minimum we need to defend our country. In fact some even question if that number could be too low. The fact alone that they didn't hold a proper competition is disheartening. Had the F-35 fairly won a contest, then it wouldn't get half the flak it is getting now. At the moment, it is unproven to be the best plane to meet our needs.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;38186904]I don't think there is too much of a problem with the F-35, however I do think there is a problem with the F-35 for Canada, as it does not fit our needs. We are a larger country than the US by a decent margin, yet are only going to be getting 65 fighters, relatively short range ones at that. If we are going to us them to patrol our borders, we may have to put fuel tanks on them which would kinda defeat the purpose of stealth. What time is Canada going to need the first strike capability of that fighter, and when are we going to enter a war by ourselves where we need that? What happens if we lose a single fighter to engine loss or just mechanical glitches, because as is, 65 has been quoted as the absolute minimum we need to defend our country. In fact some even question if that number could be too low. The fact alone that they didn't hold a proper competition is disheartening. Had the F-35 fairly won a contest, then it wouldn't get half the flak it is getting now. At the moment, it is unproven to be the best plane to meet our needs.[/QUOTE] Exactly, Saab even came into our parliament and said they could give us 65 Jas-39's for 6Bn(Including 40 year maintenance.). We could have a massive fleet of them for loads less then the F-35, and it would suit our air force ten times better. It sucks, really.. tax payer money is being wasted by our government.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38186815]Its called analysis. The F-35's capabilities have not changed much at all other then the addition of internally launched short range missiles. The thing I cited still remains the same, and is dated when it comes to the T-50 due to the fact that its referencing the Su-35 domestic. The point is: its not good for Canada, unless you think otherwise.[/QUOTE] Of course it isn't good for Canada. The F-35 is far too expensive to validate the use. Better to purchase some additional super hornets and see if they can nab the rights to produce A-10's. Why dodge surface to air weapons, when you can just get hit and laugh about it? :D If I was another NATO nation, I'd be all about going after A-10 production rights and blueprints.
[QUOTE=archangel125;38177275]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.[/QUOTE] but.....but it hovers! [editline]25th October 2012[/editline] I'm not actually sure if we're acquiring the VTOL variant but it would be awesome if we did.
[video=youtube;7WnQROVmik4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WnQROVmik4[/video] [video=youtube;ukbr2UtzH3Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukbr2UtzH3Y&feature=relmfu[/video] Somewhat relevant, seems to me that the F-35 was beat, but the asshole company won.
*sniiiiippp*
[QUOTE=Orki;38190337]They should buy Jas 39 Gripen. Source: I work on it wait... maybe don't buy it[/QUOTE] I bet you spit in them. But no, Gripens would be awesome but sadly stupid government.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.