View Single Post
Old 11-08-2017, 09:14 PM   #28
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002

Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Thanks, the price tag sticks out as the best argument. I don't really buy the stealth angle though. Aren't they only really stealthy with very few weapons loaded? And isn't most stealth considered to be mostly detectable and obsolete in the near future anyway?
With their weapons bay loaded they're fully stealthy, the biggest problem with a plane like the F-117 is that when they opened their bomb bay doors they had all the stealth of a 10 story building and it took 30 seconds to open and close the door. With the F-35 the door open and close extremely quickly. Add on that. that its more likely that Canada would use the F-35 in stealth mode where it can still carry extremely long range anti-tank and armored weapons. Its unlikely that we would see Canada configure a F-35 in beast mode where the stealth is compromised by external ordinance.

The whole stealth mode defeated argument is up for debate, yet most countries are moving to 4+ stealth platforms.

Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
If we are being honest, what types of missions does Canada really need the latest and greatest for? We don't need to be at the leading edge of the battlefront, and in the past 30 years, has their been a mission where stealth would benefit, considering we are mostly bombing countries that have no air force? The F-35 strikes me as an aircraft with a whole lot of "nice to haves" that are probably far beyond what we really need.
We are a budget military country with a small airforce that's going to be basically 4 squadrons of active combat planes. Doesn't it make sense to give your planes the most effective platform with the best possibility of survivability, and a maximum kill ability? For that reason alone, Canada should be spending more on less if that's our strategy because we can't afford to cheap out and get less value for our investment.

And we can't sit here and say that we're going to prepare for one kind of war, that's pretty much what fills body bags.

While we talk about fighting countries with no airforces, that's not necessarily true and a lot of these nations are buying things like advanced anti-aircraft missiles.

We also have an obligation to be able to answer requests and requirements for NATO and Norad.

The whole, lets do it on the cheap because it saves money when it comes to military spending really has to change, its what put us into rust out as it is, we should be showing some foresight and strategic thinking. If we're going to buy an airframe to last for 30 years, then buy a airframe that can function for 30 years and be upgraded as the technology comes out. The F-35 can do that, the Typhoon and others can't.

When we bought the CF-18 we had the foresight to do that after buying garbage like the F-5s for example that were obsolete when we got them.
Just when you think you have the answers, I change the questions
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote