F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
tailgunner
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by tailgunner » Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:43 pm

Old fella,
Sadly, military procurement in Canada is wholly a political game, often played at Banana Republic levels.
An abrieviated history goes as follows...Cf105 cancelled...Cf101 bought. Bomarc's bought, but the warheads to make them lethal kept under US wraps, or off site in another sovereign nation. Iltis (sp?) bought from Bombardier, instead of the cheaper HMMV...Seakings replaced, then not, their replacements essentially paid for in law suits....still flying the POS 25 years later....Cf5's updated, then sold....Chinooks retired, then we realized12 years later that we really need them. CP140 A "made in Canada solution" that cost nearly 80 percent more than a similar P3. Still looking for a fixed wing SAR aircraft after nearly a decade. Naval ships that cannot be quickly designed, produced and on budget. Submarines that have taken nearly a decade to bring them up to Canadian standards. Ice breakers that are so far behind schedule and over budget.....I could go on...
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Rockie » Tue Jun 14, 2016 4:52 pm

Banana republics are typically ruled by dictators who plunder the country's treasury turning themselves into billionaires. The military in places like that exist to protect the dictators power for which senior military commanders are richly rewarded. Not a good comparison.

But the level of incompetence by every Canadian government since WWII in military matters (actually Mulroney did pretty well) is a national embarrassment. The problem is every other system is worse.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1936
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Old fella » Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:20 pm

Yes tailgunner, there is a good element of truth in what you say as procurement is a make work/regional project especially the monies involved as different parts of the country want their "slice' of the pie. That's common in all of the first world nations, I dare say. Look at the good ole US of A, they have close to 1000 military bases in their system domestic/worldwide. The infrastructure needed to supply that and associated resources is in "orbit" and no chance of coming down. if ever. Some of the follies that country got itself into aka Vietnam, the wasted billions - I was around then, not to mention the 56,000 my age generation....... we all could go on and on.

:drinkers:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Moose47
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:45 pm
Location: Home of Canada's Air Defence

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Moose47 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:13 pm

G'day

" Bomarc's bought, but the warheads to make them lethal kept under US wraps, or off site in another sovereign nation."

The nukes were kept on site five nautical miles to the north of North Bay and at La Macaza, Quebec.
The U.S.A.F.'s 425th Munitions Maintenance Squadron’s mission was to equip, administer, train and furnish personnel to properly and adequately discharge custodial and maintenance functions to U.S. material (nukes) in Canada within the scope of government to government agreements between the United States and Canada.Nuclear weapons were fitted to the Douglas Genie Air-to-Air Missile and the CIM-10B Bomarc Surface-to-Air Missile

Detachments
Detachment 1 North Bay, Ontario (BOMARC)
Detachment 2 La Macaza, Quebec (BOMARC)
Detachment 3 Bagotville, Quebec (Genie)
Detachment 4 Chatham, New Brunswick (Genie)
Detachment 5 Comox, British Columbia (Genie)
Detachment 6 Val D’Or, Quebec (Genie)

The R.C.A.F. also had tactical nukes for the CF-104's in France and Germany.

The Canadian Army had tactical nukes for their Honest Johns in Germany.

Cheers...Chris
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mach1
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:04 am

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Mach1 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:02 pm

BingoFuel wrote: Liberal/Conservative/NDP/Tea Party...Just get something FFS, Hold a competition...make a decision.
That is the key phrase right there... the one the Liberals campaigned on. An open competition. I'm disgusted by the way Trudeau's government is acting in the EXACT same manner which they criticized the Conservative government of acting. Acting without consultation or public input. Just goes to show, it no longer matters who wins the election, they all act the same once in power.
---------- ADS -----------
  
I'm going to knock this up a notch with my spice weasle. Bam!

2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by 2R » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:21 am

If the F35 project had of been on time and on budget they would have been on line already.
Attempts to blame Governments for the company sales team overselling of capabilities is an exercise in futility.
The reason there was no competition, is the F-35 was not even finished flight testing when real people have to make real decisions in real time.
If the latest CSIS statement about Russia mobilising for War proves to be true . Would we be able to meet our NATO obligations because of these delays ? Delays that have caused an operational deficiency that the Minister of defence spoke about being the reasoning behind the latest decision forced upon them by the CF-18 fleet being used and their capability reduced by un forecast usage. Some would say over usage if they had not "whipped out their jets" .

There is enough blame to go around as to how these deficiencies occurred. The limited options at present will mean nothing once the missiles start flying.
Small fighter planes will be irrelevant then , as there will be nothing left to fight for. Nothing.

Maybe these delays will be a good thing as we will have to back down. We could not possibly win or even get a draw. Against an old ally that caused eighty percent of the NAZI casualties in WW2.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mach1
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:04 am

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Mach1 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:01 pm

2R wrote: The reason there was no competition, is the F-35 was not even finished flight testing when real people have to make real decisions in real time.
Are you saying that there only 2 choices on the market? The F-18 and the F35?
2R wrote:
If the latest CSIS statement about Russia mobilising for War proves to be true ... The limited options at present will mean nothing once the missiles start flying.
Small fighter planes will be irrelevant then , as there will be nothing left to fight for. Nothing.

Maybe these delays will be a good thing as we will have to back down. We could not possibly win or even get a draw. Against an old ally that caused eighty percent of the NAZI casualties in WW2.
That's a pretty bleak outlook. However, I am fairly certain that there is no impending plans to invade NATO countries by Russia because MAD is still in force... and the Russians would not fair any better than we would were that to happen.
---------- ADS -----------
  
I'm going to knock this up a notch with my spice weasle. Bam!

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by B208 » Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:18 am

Rockie wrote:Governments have all kinds of experts that they should consult B208. They do that because regardless of the issue there are many, many considerations at play. Did you know Public Works and Government Services has huge influence and authority on what kind of weapons the military gets? Do you know why? Do you even know what Public Works is?

The real world isn't as simple as you would like it to be. Government's don't just have the right to be involved in this kind of thing, it's their responsibility. Every department is subordinate to the political government in a democracy B208, do you need me to explain to you why that especially applies to the military?
Dude, let's go back to first principles here and see if we can salvage you.

Democracy is all about delegation; The population delegates authority to the legislative and/or the executive branch, these branches then delegate responsibilities to other departments. The nature and extent of this delegation is up to the elected branches. Should an elected branch so choose, they can micromanage every department. At the other extreme, they can choose good leaders, give them parameters for execution and let them do their job. These are both options under a democracy.
Right now we have a system that micromanages (via PWGSC) and elevates nice to have elements (regional economic benefits) over mission critical elements (an effective helo for troop transport for example).
A better system would delegate the selection of equipment for the job those responsible to accomplish the job. When the elected branch delegates limited authority to act on their behalf, they are by no means relinquishing control. Good leaders trust their people and delegate appropriately. Bad leaders take the micromanagement approach you advocate. Incidentally; micromanaging leaders tend to make it to middle management, (senior officer level), but then peter out; they just can't get the performance out of their people like a good delegator can. Long story short, allowing the military a greater role in selecting their equipment does not erode the strength of a democracy.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Rockie » Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:58 am

What you fail to grasp B208 is that there are many considerations in a purchase such as this beyond strictly military that the military has no expertise or interest in. They only care about their interests and that is true of all government departments. You think General Bloggins gives a rat's ass about industrial offsets? It's why major decisions, especially those involving great sums of our money are made by Cabinet - not individual cabinet ministers.

Understand dude?

Also assessing all options against necessary requirements is not by anyone's measure except yours micromanaging. It's being responsible.
---------- ADS -----------
  

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by B208 » Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:13 am

Rockie wrote:What you fail to grasp B208 is that there are many considerations in a purchase such as this
I do in fact grasp that quite well. What you failed to grasp, (despite me putting it quite plainly), was that these other considerations have been elevated to a level of importance where they significantly impair the overall goal. I will explain in concrete terms that you will understand. Take the MH replacement program as an example. The overall goal, the raison d'etre, was to get a functional helicopter onto the ships. This program has been ongoing since the 80's and still has a yet to deliver. The main difficulties with the program have all been due to problems that fall under, "other considerations" (a built in Canada back end, etc...) Pushing things through the bureaucratic quagmire that is PWGSC stymies progress to the point of making most programs ineffective. In effect, the bureaucracy is so scared that someone might do the 'wrong' thing that they prevent anyone from doing anything.
Let's be perfectly clear here; The Sea King replacement, the FW SAR replacement and the CF188 replacement are all being done using the model that you advocate. They are all, also, tremendous failures.
The C17 and C130J procurements were done IAW the model I advocate, (the trained experts tell the elected authority what is needed to deliver the effects required by the elected authority; the elected authority then buys what is needed). Those programs succeeded.
In short; Your way = demonstrated failure. My way = demonstrated success.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Rockie » Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:52 pm

Incorrect dude. The Sea King replacement program in no way followed the correct process and it also suffers from problems with its chosen replacement. The CF-18 did follow the process and was a huge success by any measure. The C17 was a relatively small purpose and had no equivalent competitor which is especially true for the Herc J. Same with the Chinook helicopters.

Corruption of the proper process does not negate the merits or necessity for that process.
---------- ADS -----------
  

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by B208 » Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:53 pm

Rockie wrote:The Sea King replacement program in no way followed the correct process.
It followed the process you are on here defending. It failed.
Rockie wrote:The C17 was a relatively small purpose and had no equivalent competitor which is especially true for the Herc J. Same with the Chinook helicopters.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Small purpose and no other competitors! That's funny.....
---------- ADS -----------
  

frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by frosti » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:43 pm

Rockie wrote:The C17 was a relatively small purpose and had no equivalent competitor
The F35 has no real competitor since its the only 5 Gen and modern fighter available right now. Anything else would be just buying a newer version of the CF18s we have now. It would be a colossal waste of money.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Rockie » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:49 pm

B208 wrote:
Rockie wrote:The Sea King replacement program in no way followed the correct process.
It followed the process you are on here defending. It failed.
No it didn't follow the process, at least not after the EH-101 was selected. Then a guy named Chrétien made an opportunistic campaign promise and killed the project for a couple more decades. That was before you were born though.

The C17 was a relatively small purchase compared to the CF-18 replacement, not purpose. That's what you get for typing on a phone with one thumb on a moving bus. Anyway, long range strategic airlift was needed immediately for the Afghanistan mission and nothing else could do the job. Four airplanes bought. Same with the Hercs. They've been fulfilling a role for decades, and as the old airplanes were falling apart they needed to be replaced. Nothing else available to carry out a decades old role. Neither compare to the fighter replacement.
frosti wrote:The F35 has no real competitor since its the only 5 Gen and modern fighter available right now. Anything else would be just buying a newer version of the CF18s we have now. It would be a colossal waste of money.
The idea that the F-35 will be the only effective fighter in the future is false, as is the contention that it is the airplane we need.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gilles Hudicourt
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2034
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Gilles Hudicourt » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:10 pm

Rockie wrote: Anyway, long range strategic airlift was needed immediately for the Afghanistan mission and nothing else could do the job. Four airplanes bought.
Thats a quite a funny statement considering that most of Canada's military equipment and supplies that was shipped by air, was not only deployed to Afghanistan but also re-deployed back to Canada using civilian chartered Il-76, An-124 and An-225 aircraft.
---------- ADS -----------
  

2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by 2R » Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:09 pm

Several countries that asked to buy the F-22 were politely told it was not for sale. After that decision those countries have been busy.
Japan has been busy building a new jet fighter.
Germany has been building a new Jet fighter.
China built the Chengdu J-20 ,If Canada chose to buy those it could order them without engines as Pratt and Whitney has an engine that would be an easy fit .
Considering how much high tech equipment is bought from China and the reliance of companies for parts for planes trains and automobiles . Justin likes how China does things so I imagine he might sign a HUGE Asia TPP deal including some aeronautical products as well as Fighter jets and less expensive missiles.Maybe even complete cars instead of just car parts. Complete Planes instead of just parts .Complete trains instead of just parts.

At least the J-20 has two engines :)
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Rockie » Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:10 am

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:
Rockie wrote: Anyway, long range strategic airlift was needed immediately for the Afghanistan mission and nothing else could do the job. Four airplanes bought.
Thats a quite a funny statement considering that most of Canada's military equipment and supplies that was shipped by air, was not only deployed to Afghanistan but also re-deployed back to Canada using civilian chartered Il-76, An-124 and An-225 aircraft.
The US uses civilian airlift extensively as well, but some tasks require military crews and aircraft for obvious, and some not so obvious reasons.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
grimey
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2979
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: somewhere drunk

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by grimey » Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:59 am

AuxBatOn wrote:
schnitzel2k3 wrote: Mirage might work.
Oh really? That's interesting as all Mirages are single engine.
He may have meant the Rafale, there was some talk a while back about Dassault offering it up as an alternative.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-s- ... -1.2577234

I've no idea how well that would work for us or whether it's a better or worse deal than anything else.
---------- ADS -----------
  
no sig because apparently quoting people in context is offensive to them.

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by B208 » Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:30 am

Rockie wrote:
B208 wrote:
Rockie wrote:The Sea King replacement program in no way followed the correct process.
It followed the process you are on here defending. It failed.
No it didn't follow the process,
Yes, it did follow the model, (absolute, micromanaged political control of procurement by bureaucrats and elected officials), you are on here defending. It failed. Just like the FW SAR procurement and fighter procurement are on the verge of failing.
Anyway, long range strategic airlift was needed immediately for the Afghanistan mission and nothing else could do the job. Four airplanes bought. Same with the Hercs. They've been fulfilling a role for decades, and as the old airplanes were falling apart they needed to be replaced. Nothing else available to carry out a decades old role. Neither compare to the fighter replacement.
Well, there's nothing new about the roles of SAR, Fighter or MH. They are all decades old, so that part of your argument holds no water. In terms of alternate COAs; There were plenty. As Gilles already pointed out there was charter, Spartan, etc.... If the government had wanted to have a competition they could have found many viable competitors. However, if you read Gen Hillier's book, you see that they didn't. Essentially, the procurement process for the C17's and Hercs involved the trained professionals, (the military), telling the controlling authority, (the government), what was needed to achieve the desired end state. The government then bought what was needed. No fuss, no muss and overall control still remained with the civilian power.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Rockie » Fri Jun 17, 2016 7:39 am

B208 wrote:Yes, it did follow the model, (absolute, micromanaged political control of procurement by bureaucrats and elected officials), you are on here defending.
The EH-101 was selected using the process and would have been in service a long time ago, but it ran into political trouble after it was selected and was cancelled due to a crass, opportunistic political promise made by Jean Chretien. The replacement program has never recovered. The process was successful, it's what happened after that killed it. Look it up.
B208 wrote: As Gilles already pointed out there was charter, Spartan, etc.... If the government had wanted to have a competition they could have found many viable competitors.
As I previously stated militaries have military tasking that cannot be done by civilian charters. I don't blame you for not knowing that but you'll just have to take my word for it. As for the Spartan you should perhaps look at a picture of it, that alone will tell you without doing anything else why it could not do the taskings required of the Herc or the C17. As a Herc replacement they could have looked at the A400M I suppose, but when all you're looking for is something to replace old worn out Hercs just replace them with new Hercs. They do the job they've always needed to do, no training required, no different supply train needed and there was just no need to look for something different. The military and political interests all agreed. I'll bet they were way cheaper than the A400M as well.

Given your approval of the Herc replacement you should be in favour of the Super Hornet since it's simply replacing an old airplane with a newer one of the same type.
B208 wrote:Well, there's nothing new about the roles of SAR, Fighter or MH. They are all decades old, so that part of your argument holds no water.
You know less than nothing about fighter operations so don't bother trying to sound like you do. There are multiple options that have to be measured against Canada's requirements now and into the future. I've mentioned a few of them here not least of which is the huge cost, which by itself demands a careful review and selection.
---------- ADS -----------
  

TheStig
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by TheStig » Fri Jun 17, 2016 10:33 am

Rockie wrote: There are multiple options that have to be measured against Canada's requirements now and into the future. I've mentioned a few of them here not least of which is the huge cost, which by itself demands a careful review and selection.
I think everyone can agree on this statement. However, last weeks news would indicate that the Grits are planning to sole source the Super Hornet (much like the Cons did with the F-35) without a proper competition. This is being done for political reasons, as a proper competition (as promised by both Libs and Cons) might yield the F-35 as the winner. Relating the purchase of the F/A-18 E/F to that of the RAAF's doesn't hold any water as those Hornets were ordered 10 years ago when the RAAF had a real 'capability gap' as both aircraft are now available, unlike 2006 when the RAAF ordered their Super Hornets.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Rockie » Fri Jun 17, 2016 10:48 am

TheStig wrote:
Rockie wrote: There are multiple options that have to be measured against Canada's requirements now and into the future. I've mentioned a few of them here not least of which is the huge cost, which by itself demands a careful review and selection.
I think everyone can agree on this statement. However, last weeks news would indicate that the Grits are planning to sole source the Super Hornet (much like the Cons did with the F-35) without a proper competition. This is being done for political reasons, as a proper competition (as promised by both Libs and Cons) might yield the F-35 as the winner. Relating the purchase of the F/A-18 E/F to that of the RAAF's doesn't hold any water as those Hornets were ordered 10 years ago when the RAAF had a real 'capability gap' as both aircraft are now available, unlike 2006 when the RAAF ordered their Super Hornets.
I agree, although not the part about the F-35 being available now - it's far from that and getting them just to bridge an immediate capability gap would be a huge mistake. If Trudeau wants to sole source the SH even in limited numbers he's going to have to be a lot more transparent and convince Canadians of the need.

After a proper assessment it might even be best for Canada to get a mixed fleet of Super Hornets and F-35's. The Super Hornets are at true multi-role platform that is easily acquired right now to bridge the capability gap. They could eventually be primarily sovereignty air defence (love the two engines) with a secondary air to ground role, and they are able to easily and quickly integrate into our existing fleet of CF-18's.

The F-35's - in smaller numbers and provided they are selected - could be directed primarily at high threat areas like Europe with the rise of Russian aggression with a secondary air defence role in Canada.

Just an idea, but one of the options that could be looked at carefully that may satisfy all requirements given a proper evaluation.
---------- ADS -----------
  

frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by frosti » Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:30 am

Rockie wrote:Just an idea, but one of the options that could be looked at carefully that may satisfy all requirements given a proper evaluation.
That's been done already by teams of experts and the F-35 was chosen. Just because the outcome wasn't to your personal liking doesn't mean its wrong. More so, the F35 was chosen by a dozen other countries, some that held competitions and every time the Super Hornet was squashed. If the damn thing didn't have two engines no one would be advocating for it. We are better off to lease and weaponize a small fleet of 747s, which has 4 engines for that extra tingly feeling for your wussy pilots, stuff it full of cruise missiles, EW and chaff flares, then have it tool around the Arctic. It could easily intercept and shoot down the majority of the Russian Air Force in any large-scale invasion all at once.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Rockie » Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:47 am

frosti wrote:That's been done already by teams of experts and the F-35 was chosen.
Hardly. The F-35 was chosen and then teams of experts tried to sell it to the Canadian public who were unimpressed with the lack of a proper competition and the bogus cost figures put forth by the Conservatives.
frosti wrote:More so, the F35 was chosen by a dozen other countries, some that held competitions and every time the Super Hornet was squashed.
In Denmark's case at least Boeing is raising some startling objections over just how uneven the competition was. And it's been explained countless times why Canada is not Denmark, or Italy, or anybody else.
frosti wrote:We are better off to lease and weaponize a small fleet of 747s, which has 4 engines for that extra tingly feeling for your wussy pilots
Spoken like somebody who spends all his time safely on the ground.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1936
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

Post by Old fella » Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:57 pm

What about a mixed fleet of F-35 and CF-18 aka SH, Hornets for chasing the undesirables from off our coast and F-35 as a strike fighter for allied commitment Europe/Asia/ Mid-East in case somebody steps outta line over there - it happened before.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”