Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
All of the available planes have their warts.
True that the NG's profile isn't changing much from the C. Searching for current costs, the best I could find is that the Swedes have an order not exceeding overrun at $105 per plane, that Saab would have to match for other delivery. The F35 projections are kind of all over the place but the last that I found was around $138 per plane. A huge part of the appeal and cost of the F35 is the stealth capability, which Canada really doesn't need for any mission it will be asked to perform. You're right, it's not low observable as the other options, but is faster, more maneuverable and has a further range.
|
I've seen pricing going from $105 to $113 per plane,
I don't understand why Canada doesn't need Stealth Capability in any of their missions, Stealth Capability combined with the F35's superior situational sensor suite and interoperability means that we can buy 65 planes because they're more efficient in terms of their kill ration with the Saab.
The Saab would fly a mission profile like an F18 without the efficiencies of the F35 given to it by Stealth, sensors and theater control, so you would probably have to have a larger airforce using the Saab.
Faster and more maneuverable is losing importance in the battlefield when the next generation fighter is designed to sneak up and stab you in the back from close range. Plus the Stealth Capability makes it harder for modern Air to Air Missiles to lock on. That will change down the road as missiles become more advanced but at least with the F35 there's lots of ways to upgrade the plane over the next 40 years in terms of sensors and avionics and control systems, whereas the NG is probably at its apex right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
Another option is the Super Hornet, which is a dual engine design up from the current CF-18.
|
I don't see the F-18 Superhornet as anything more then a short term bridge aircraft. It can't match the F35 in terms of low observability, sensors or advanced data management and theater management. The two engine system to me is irrelevant in this day and age. Its a nice multi-role fighter, but it won't serve Canada's needs for the next 40 years and we would need to go back to a 80 to 100 ship airforce if we went with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
I found that it is really hard to find an objective comparison of the planes that are available. Most of the information is coming second hand from the Brazilians, who underwent the selection process recently, and the Australians, who are in the same boat we are. Most sites discussing each plane seem to have a political agenda.
I guess what I naturally rebel against is that the federal government isn't being objective either. It feels like a royal edict that we must purchase the F35.
|
The Federal Government in my mind did the thing that they should have done years ago with all aspects of the Military. If your going to have a small military outfit it with bleeding edge technology with maximum survivability and maximum kill ratio. There wasn't much of a contest because frankly the F35 as designed is the best option for a 65 ship fleet. Plus there is a better opportunity for a closed in logistical and support chain in not having our fighter's manufacturers over sea's
This is the strategy that we should have been following since the draw down at the end of WW2 instead of making token purchases of cheap crappy or obsolete out of the box equipment .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
And Canada holds onto its military equipment several decades too long for everything. I'll be happy if whatever we get is still in the air in 40 years, while China will probably have Brundlefly transporter technology. The best we can do is buy a 5th gen fighter, and hope that the next gen is far enough away.
|
But at least the F-35 is upgradable for the next 40 years, especially at its heart which is the computer, avionics and sensor systems.