Canada seeking to replace CF-18 fighter fleet

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

F-15 has zero combat losses. K/D=infinity.

Huh

An F-15 was shot down on the first day of Desert Storm ground to air missile
2 days later another f15 was shot down by a surface to air missile
in 2003 a 15E went down during a bombing mission


There have been 3 combat losses, 4 if you count another one of Afghanistan cause never revealed.

[SebC]

Already retracted/corrected, Captain.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

If they're mocking hi tech fighter planes that have periodic mechanical troubles, they must have a pretty busy little publication.

Cowperson

lol its not a serious publication and they are just joking around.

Originally Posted by T@T

Cute, but when a country has about six 40 year old F-15's as it's fighter fleet one shouldn't throw stones.

Iceland would have trouble beating Greenland in a war.

lol oh you guys, sound like upset patriotic American's using the old "oh yeah well we have the biggest ...."

Iceland has no military, never has, never will. Nato takes care of us

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Thor

Iceland has no military, never has, never will. Nato takes care of us

What is the deal with that? How does a country have no army and get others to take care of them?
I read a bit and it said Iceland was considered important against the Soviets so NATO stepped in then. Does Iceland pay NATO for the protection/services or is defense just seen as not important to them?
Iceland is a partner in NATO so if there is a NATO led mission somewhere do they contribute at all or just hang back?

Not trying to sound rude, just curious. Although I do think Canada should flex some muscle and land 20 soldiers in Iceland for an occupation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

What is the deal with that? How does a country have no army and get others to take care of them?
I read a bit and it said Iceland was considered important against the Soviets so NATO stepped in then. Does Iceland pay NATO for the protection/services or is defense just seen as not important to them?
Iceland is a partner in NATO so if there is a NATO led mission somewhere do they contribute at all or just hang back?

Not trying to sound rude, just curious. Although I do think Canada should flex some muscle and land 20 soldiers in Iceland for an occupation.

During the Cold War Iceland was extremely strategic from the standpoint of Convoy's going from North America to Europe both in terms of air cover and anti-submarine activities.

Nato was more then willing to place advanced fighters on the Island and use it as a home for part of the Sosus network.

With the Russian resergence and development of new long range frontal naval aviation aircraft and new subs, and with the importance of arctic resources Iceland could become a key strategic defense partner again.

[Senator Clay Davis]

We need to protect Bjork and Sigur Ros, that's why we take care of Iceland.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

We need to bomb Bjork and Sigur Ros, that's why we take care of Iceland.

fyp

[FlameOn]

Another hitch hit yesterday in the F-35 program. US has grounded all planes in their F-35 fleet after finding cracks in a number of the engine turbine blades. Not clear if it's a design flaw or not yet, but if it is... who knows how long this one will take to fix.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21554331

[CaptainCrunch]

As much as I like the f-35 concept and capabilities, and still believe its the best selection for Canada due to the expected lifespan and size of the fleet, its probably time to move on from this plane.

There is something hideously wrong with Lockheed Martin's quality control on this project, either the design has outstripped the capability to make it reality, or the company has been run by chimpanzee's having sex with footballs.

I don't like any of the alternatives that have been put forward unless Canada decides to shorten the expected lifespan of the fleet.

But man, I'm starting to feel foolish about supporting the f-35 so hard.

[Azure]

I think we all supported it. Nobody knew Lockheed would screw it up so badly. Heads need to roll over this one.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

As much as I like the f-35 concept and capabilities, and still believe its the best selection for Canada due to the expected lifespan and size of the fleet, its probably time to move on from this plane.

There is something hideously wrong with Lockheed Martin's quality control on this project, either the design has outstripped the capability to make it reality, or the company has been run by chimpanzee's having sex with footballs.

I don't like any of the alternatives that have been put forward unless Canada decides to shorten the expected lifespan of the fleet.

But man, I'm starting to feel foolish about supporting the f-35 so hard.

Don't feel foolish. When it was first announced years ago I was on board and totally supported the program. However once the veil was lifted the warts started to show. Lockheed Martin is a mess.

[T@T]

Maybe it's time for Bombardier to get into the fighter biz

[Bigtime]

Lockmart has blown this in a big way, definitely chimpanzee's having sex with footballs working behind the scenes on this one.

[jofillips]

so i'm interested to know if you watched the fifth estate documentary on this?

some old fuddy duddy (no idea how relevant to anything this man was) kept on saying it was a useless plane with the ability of a ww1 biplane pretty much.
Now I call bull**** on that codger, of course its over budget and late - BUT no use at all??

[driveway]

The description I remember hearing of the F-35, and I'll be damned if I can remember where I heard it in order to find the source, is that it is essentially a "bomb truck."

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jofillips

so i'm interested to know if you watched the fifth estate documentary on this?

some old fuddy duddy (no idea how relevant to anything this man was) kept on saying it was a useless plane with the ability of a ww1 biplane pretty much.
Now I call bull**** on that codger, of course its over budget and late - BUT no use at all??

I watched it, while it had some good points in terms of the governmental side of things. They really slanted on the technology side of things and really only talked to people that wanted to utterly blast the aircraft itself.

They did talk to Pierre Sprey who was a member of the Fighter Mafia that designed the F-16 and he gleefully bashed the F-35, he also gleefully bashed the F-22 Raptor, and pretty much every plane that has come out without his name attached to it.

It was a tough Fifth Estate to watch, there's no doubt that the government mishandled the file,and that members of the department of defense didn't communicate and embarrassed the government.

But there was some real slant on the capabilities side, though it was fairly honest on the issues side and the government side.

[Hack&Lube]

Why don't we just get our Canadian aerospace industry to develop and build drones? That's certainly within their abilities and it also keeps costs down and opens up new export markets.

Why do we need manned fighter craft for Canada's needs today anyway?

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm of the opinion that Drones would be useless in all roles except surveillance and maybe light precision ground to ground.

I think we're still a ways away from being able to use Drones for air space defense or proper troop support.

I also believe that you have to have a pilot in the cockpit to have proper situational awareness and to be able to fight the plane.

I'm also concerned that one of the great focuses of Iran and China and other nations is to disrupt the links between the ground and the drones that are fighting all ready, and that won't change until you have a truly autonomous vehicle.

[jofillips]

During the programme I kept thinking of a lot of the points you made crunch and find myself agreeing with a lot of what you say.
Fascinating to learn of the levels of involvement different countries do and don't have in this...

It seems to come down to what the RCAF needs from its one fighter (I assume it has to almost do everything?)
From what I gather with the brits - they have the Eurofighter for Air Superiority which possibly removes that need from the F-35 for them.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They did talk to Pierre Sprey who was a member of the Fighter Mafia that designed the F-16 and he gleefully bashed the F-35, he also gleefully bashed the F-22 Raptor, and pretty much every plane that has come out without his name attached to it.

That's how I felt about the interview - I would like to have heard what Pierre would have said if asked:

- "What are your thoughts on the current crop of competitors planes?"
- "What would you suggest a government do for fleet renewal in the current budget restricted climate?"

It's easy for people to bring problems - I often like to ask if they have solutions.