Heh, by same I mean similar performance characteristics, role fulfillment, that sort of thing. Of course the stealth aspect is there, as well as updated avionics, and like the Cap'n said it's a modern fighter.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I still think the F22 Raptor is a better fighter than the F35.
Canada should buck up and purchase a few of those.
The F22 is a better fighter, but Canada's requirements weren't for just a fighter, it was for a full multi-role aircraft, capable of air to ground roles as well. We can't/won't afford to have multiple models like the US to fulfill those different roles.
Hence the F/A-18 model designation, and the F-35 is similar in its multi-role capability.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The F22 is first and foremost an air superiority fighter, but it can function as a limited ground attack fighter carrying the Small Diametor bomb or the JDAM but it dosen't carry air to ground missiles so its not as adaptable as the JSF, and Canada's philosophy especially with thier air force is to have one multi-role fighter thats decent at everything as oppossed to multiple different fighters that fulfill specific roles. Its cheaper to operate that way.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
The F22 is first and foremost an air superiority fighter, but it can function as a limited ground attack fighter carrying the Small Diametor bomb or the JDAM but it dosen't carry air to ground missiles so its not as adaptable as the JSF, and Canada's philosophy especially with thier air force is to have one multi-role fighter thats decent at everything as oppossed to multiple different fighters that fulfill specific roles. Its cheaper to operate that way.
I agree with that. I was just thinking it would be better to have a jet that is exceptional at one role, but is also capable at another. Rather than try to find a jack of all trades. Canada has a lot of airspace, so to me, it would make sense to have the very best air-to-air fighter available. That would would cut the costs in a way, and provide helicopter support for ground troops.
__________________
"Opinions are like demo tapes, and I don't want to hear yours" -- Stephen Colbert
I agree with that. I was just thinking it would be better to have a jet that is exceptional at one role, but is also capable at another. Rather than try to find a jack of all trades. Canada has a lot of airspace, so to me, it would make sense to have the very best air-to-air fighter available. That would would cut the costs in a way, and provide helicopter support for ground troops.
The problem however is that wouldn't save costs. Canada's use of the air-air capability of the F18 is less than it's air-ground (correct me if I'm wrong please). We would still need 2 different types of aircraft, requiring different ground support equipment as well as armament inventories. Costs would increase since everything can't be used for on aircraft type. The best thing we could do is get an aircraft that does a variety of missions.
I agree with that. I was just thinking it would be better to have a jet that is exceptional at one role, but is also capable at another. Rather than try to find a jack of all trades. Canada has a lot of airspace, so to me, it would make sense to have the very best air-to-air fighter available. That would would cut the costs in a way, and provide helicopter support for ground troops.
Any kind of deployment that Canada has done with its air force has involved air to mud capability (see the first Iraq War).
Unfortunately for the most part, diferent fighters use different parts, ammo, avionics systems and engines, so the effective cost to the airforce would double if we went to a multi-plan philosophy.
As it stands the Airforce is facing a 30% budget reduction this year due to the funds being used in Afghanistan, and the purchase of the new transport planes.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
As it stands the Airforce is facing a 30% budget reduction this year due to the funds being used in Afghanistan, and the purchase of the new transport planes.
Ouch.. and how many of our original CF-18's are actually operational? 25?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Canadian Airfoce is banking on the 35a production model as its replacement for the F-18, at the moment they'll continue to use the CF-18. I'd personally rather have the stealthy F35 then the Superhornet, which is a very good fighter, but its based on a 20 year old airframe that won't be as effective against the newer generation fighters.
Effective against what? It doesn't seem like Russia is pumping out much in the way of next-gen fighters. I guess you could eventually see China with something like the Mig-35 or the latest Flankers, but is that even a problem really for any country that has NATO-backing? The Mig-29 seems to be the most advanced export fighter out there right now, and the F-18 stacks up pretty well.
I'd still like to see F-35's, too, mind you. It just seems to me that any NATO coalition projection of airpower will vastly outnumber and outgun most foes.
