New Fighters
- Thread starter mad dog 2020
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Webgear said:
I thought you said 65 wasn't enough?
No, I did not say that.
My major issue with the F-35 is the cost per aircraft. We could purchase 2 or 3 other platforms for the price of one F-35.
We could purchase other much needed equipment for the forces if we selected another aircraft. Instead we are putting 15-30 billion dollars into a platform that I believe will not suit our needs in future conflicts.
I would rather see 5 billion dollars spent on a different aircraft, and the remaining 10 billion dollars spent on rotary aircraft (heavy lift/ground attack), naval ships (JSS/AORs) and armoured vehicles.
My major issue with the F-35 is the cost per aircraft. We could purchase 2 or 3 other platforms for the price of one F-35.
We could purchase other much needed equipment for the forces if we selected another aircraft. Instead we are putting 15-30 billion dollars into a platform that I believe will not suit our needs in future conflicts.
I would rather see 5 billion dollars spent on a different aircraft, and the remaining 10 billion dollars spent on rotary aircraft (heavy lift/ground attack), naval ships (JSS/AORs) and armoured vehicles.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Webgear said:
"The number of aircraft we are not purchasing will not cover our current operating capabilities and mission requirements. "
I'm done.
A
aesop081
Guest
Webgear said:
Well, you see its like this :
1- You need some available for missions
2- You need some available for training
3- You will have some that are broken and being fixed
4- You will have some going through one level of periodic inspection or other
5- At some point you will have some away for upgrades
6- Unfortunately, during the course of a fighter's service life, you will lose some to accidents and operations
It adds up very, very fast..........
A
aesop081
Guest
Webgear said:
I never said that 65 does not suit our needs.
If we resonably expect to only deploy 6 overseas at any given time, plus maintaining alert here at home...........
Now, how about you explain why it does not sit our needs, are you just throwing out baseless opinions ?
Sorry... I did meant to imply that you stated that the 65 aircraft will not suit our needs.
I meant the factors you brought up are good points, I do not believe the number of aircraft will mean the CF current requirements from the factors you have outlined.
I meant the factors you brought up are good points, I do not believe the number of aircraft will mean the CF current requirements from the factors you have outlined.
A
aesop081
Guest
Webgear said:
Then please explain why you think that. Saying the same thing over and over with no analysis does not give your position any credibility and will certainly not convince anyone.
Okay, I will try to explain my view by using the 6 factors you have outlined above.
Looking at previous deployment rates for the CF-18 over the last 20 years, lets say at anyone time you 8 aircraft deployed overseas (like Libya), you will likely have another 12 aircraft deployed in Canada (domestic operations).
There are 24 aircraft at the various fighter squadrons across the country being used for collective training.
Another 12 aircraft are being use for training (individual pilot training, supporting joint collective training such as Maple Guardian 1102)
Another 4 aircraft are broken, 4 are getting upgrades and another 12 aircraft are going through periodical inspection.
And lets say that 5 of the aircraft are destroyed in the first 10 years due to various reasons.
By my count that adds up to 81 aircraft, when we only have order 65 at 15 billion dollars.
Of course these are the worst case numbers in this given scenario however if we ordered a less expensive platform and ordered 130 Typhoons we would have better depth in our operations and capabilities.
Looking at previous deployment rates for the CF-18 over the last 20 years, lets say at anyone time you 8 aircraft deployed overseas (like Libya), you will likely have another 12 aircraft deployed in Canada (domestic operations).
There are 24 aircraft at the various fighter squadrons across the country being used for collective training.
Another 12 aircraft are being use for training (individual pilot training, supporting joint collective training such as Maple Guardian 1102)
Another 4 aircraft are broken, 4 are getting upgrades and another 12 aircraft are going through periodical inspection.
And lets say that 5 of the aircraft are destroyed in the first 10 years due to various reasons.
By my count that adds up to 81 aircraft, when we only have order 65 at 15 billion dollars.
Of course these are the worst case numbers in this given scenario however if we ordered a less expensive platform and ordered 130 Typhoons we would have better depth in our operations and capabilities.
A
aesop081
Guest
Webgear said:
So show me that Typhoon is less expensive........
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 223
- Points
- 710
Webgear said:
Let's put this into perspective for you. Let's pretend you live in "small town Canada". Your small town has a Fire Hall housing a fifty year old firetruck. It is hard to get parts for this truck and it is worn out. The Town Council has put the rubber stamp on the plans of a Developer to build a seven story condominium. The Fire Dept has no equipment to deal with structures over two stories high. As there hasn't been a fire in this small town for several years, the Town Council sees no need to buy a new firetruck, one that would be able to better handle all worse case scenarios. For this very reason they closed down and sold off the fire equipment of a second Fire Station a few years back as a budget cut, leaving just one today to deal with fires
Now let's look at our military and the world today. This is not 1900 any more, and the world situation changes very quickly these days. Industry can not retool for war overnight. Our major industrial centers are still targeted by ICBMs of our enemies/former enemies.
If you want to be prepared for the worse case scenarios, you must have the equipment and training to deal with them, whether they happen or not. You do not train and equip after the fact.
It is called "preparedness".
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 160
So we have 40 yr old ships, which are not double hulled and are not totally welcome abroad due to possible environmental concerns. We had a chance for some UK clearance sell offs to do a stop gap, and this could be a compromise to address the JSSship/planes issue.
Seemed to be OK with Australia.
It just seems that the cost of the planes is a bit steep considering the current fiscal climate. And the JSS are overdue.
There shouldn't be a navy vs air force contest. both are required.
Maybe with the US finacial woes buy some aircraft off them to tide us over until we are better off budget wise. I understand they may have a few extra laying around.
We did this with the tank situation and the German/Dutch dealio.
just a thought. Money is a bit tight and this is not a popular topic in the election propaganda.
Seemed to be OK with Australia.
It just seems that the cost of the planes is a bit steep considering the current fiscal climate. And the JSS are overdue.
There shouldn't be a navy vs air force contest. both are required.
Maybe with the US finacial woes buy some aircraft off them to tide us over until we are better off budget wise. I understand they may have a few extra laying around.
We did this with the tank situation and the German/Dutch dealio.
just a thought. Money is a bit tight and this is not a popular topic in the election propaganda.
- Reaction score
- 22,145
- Points
- 1,010
Yeah- we've done that before, both with Banshees for the RCN and Voodoos for the RCAF. We got junk both times that ended up being more trouble than it was worth.
Buying used aircraft is really problematic. Airworthiness and maintenance history issues are almost guaranteed to crop up.
This is probably the most expensise and least effective way of solving our fighter woes.
Buy new or buy nothing.
- Reaction score
- 2,188
- Points
- 1,160
Used British Subs anyone???
Reportable: "At the moment, none of the British-built diesel boats is capable of firing the navy's stock of torpedoes."
Reportable: "At the moment, none of the British-built diesel boats is capable of firing the navy's stock of torpedoes."
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Webgear said:
No offence, but you sound like you got your information straight from what Winslow Wheeler of the Centre for Defense Information in Washington said while in Canada earlier this week.
And with regards to cost, I think you'll find the following after a little bit of research:
Super Hornet Cost: $106 Million US (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11233sp.pdf - pg. 10)
Eurofighter Typhoon: $90 Million Euros (not to mention all the delays and still increasing prices)
As well, your comment about the platform having serious design flaws is leaving me concerned.
Even if you're not an aeronautical engineer, it shouldn't take a degree to know that when ones weapons stations aren't aligned with the fuselage then there will be reduced aerodynamics and as such less maneuverability. Have a close look at the Super Hornet to get the jist of what I'm talking about.
And Webgear - how can you state that the per unit cost will rise when everyone knows that once something is being produced the cost will come down, not rise? As well, it's not like Canada is having to pay for the R&D for this aircraft.
Wing of Fury
I am not offended, I am interested in debating what platform is better for Canada.
I have done a bit of research on the subject. I am not bias in my research, I have looked at several different sites from both right and left wing prospective.
Why do you think the F-35 is the better platform for Canada?
I am not offended, I am interested in debating what platform is better for Canada.
I have done a bit of research on the subject. I am not bias in my research, I have looked at several different sites from both right and left wing prospective.
Why do you think the F-35 is the better platform for Canada?
