YEah and that never happens in the US. Stealth is really rapidly approaching irrelevance. The F-35 is not really stealthy in off aspect approaches. All the enemy needs to do is make sure their have their formations about 20 miles apart and the F-35 stealth features are pretty much useless. Even in bombing missions, seperating radars will make the F-35 pretty easy to shoot down.
JSF F-35: Unable to meet Canada's needs and over priced
- Thread starter Never Compromised
- Start date
Assuming you're talking about the F-35, I think the real problem is it's an untendered contract, and taxpayers know that those lead to a sore behind.I really think the real problem people have with the F-22's is that they are American made, and it's just a knee jerk reaction that we sold out whenever we make any deal with them (US)
F 111 design began 1961 or there abouts , entered service 1967Wow you are sooo out of it. B-52's drop mainly bombs...JDAMs to be precise. In a first strike mode they will use cruise missiles... so will the B-2's for that matter. B-1 and FB-111 were only developed a about 8 years apart.. which is why B-1 has many similar features. B-1 is MUCH slower then FB-111 as well. In todays world the sensors and weapons are far more important then the actual platform. Bombers only switch to low cost JDAMS after air superiority has been achieved, at which point the B-52 becomes the lowest cost means of delivering the goods. It is also the most reliable bomber in US inventory today.
B1B design began 1980 ( B1 airframe designed earlier complete new avianoics package) entered service 1986
There is a considerable difference between J
As already as been mentioned:
a) the CF - 18's need to be replaced and there is a lag time in ordering etc. . .
b) The U.S. is not selling F-22's (and would Canada really wish to pay the cost for the same)
c) the Eurofighter Typhoon both has 'short legs' and is not a truly a fifth generation fighter aircraft
So there we are. . . .
a) the CF - 18's need to be replaced and there is a lag time in ordering etc. . .
b) The U.S. is not selling F-22's (and would Canada really wish to pay the cost for the same)
c) the Eurofighter Typhoon both has 'short legs' and is not a truly a fifth generation fighter aircraft
So there we are. . . .
WSeveral european nations, that are not so beholden to the US as Canada, have put their purchase of new fighter planes on hold, because of the enormous cost over runs on the F35. Then again, Denmark was planning to buy 18 fighters, not that big a worry.As already as been mentioned:
a) the CF - 18's need to be replaced and there is a lag time in ordering etc. . .
b) The U.S. is not selling F-22's (and would Canada really wish to pay the cost for the same)
c) the Eurofighter Typhoon both has 'short legs' and is not a truly a fifth generation fighter aircraft
So there we are. . . .
B1B was just an update of B1A which was early 70's tech....F 111 design began 1961 or there abouts , entered service 1967
B1B design began 1980 ( B1 airframe designed earlier complete new avianoics package) entered service 1986
There is a considerable difference between J
The silent eagle F-15 derivative would be a better design... or we can just tell the Americans we want to buy F-22's if not we will buy Eurofighters. Heck even the latest F-16s would be just fine as the Israelis are still buying them. Personally I think the ideal plane available from the US would be the F-15. PLUS if we did buy Boeing F-15's we could demand HUGE amounts of business from the 787, 737 and future 777 replacement. They would probably accept 2x offset as they are quite anxious to sell the Silent Eagle.What is the alternative? Russian or European fighters?
Maybe we should be Chinese?
However, that is the damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemma. Needless to say bankrupting the state is foolhardy, at the same time having a military which in unforseen circumstances is unable to defend the state without significant multi-year warning to allow build up of non-existent forces is likewise foolhardy.WSeveral european nations. . . have put their purchase of new fighter planes on hold, because of the enormous cost over runs on the F35.
You really believe that 18 fighter planes will be able to defend Denmark. Maybe against the Faroe Islands or Iceland??However, that is the damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemma. Needless to say bankrupting the state is foolhardy, at the same time having a military which in unforseen circumstances is unable to defend the state without significant multi-year warning to allow build up of non-existent forces is likewise foolhardy.
Of course the fighters are a ticket to Nato, which has no more defensive roles to play.
According to the article the F-35 is now MORE COSTLY then the F-22!!! this is INSANITY. I think they need to kill it. I think the first people to bail on the F-35 will be the Navy dumping the F-35B... they need the F-35 C as there is no VTOL alternative.As already as been mentioned:
a) the CF - 18's need to be replaced and there is a lag time in ordering etc. . .
b) The U.S. is not selling F-22's (and would Canada really wish to pay the cost for the same)
c) the Eurofighter Typhoon both has 'short legs' and is not a truly a fifth generation fighter aircraft
So there we are. . . .
Indeed.According to the article the F-35 is now MORE COSTLY then the F-35!!! this is INSANITY.
You may well be correct, but you are now making a better and more logical argument than before.According to the article the F-35 is now MORE COSTLY then the F-22!!! this is INSANITY. I think they need to kill it. I think the first people to bail on the F-15 will be the Navy dumping the F-35B... they need the F-35 C as there is no VTOL alternative.
Which even if the case constructively addresses what I wrote in what way?You really believe that 18 fighter planes . . .
Denmark has not been able to fund a military able to defend her since 1848.Which even if the case constructively addresses what I wrote in what way?
Yes, but Denmark even before then was the Ottoman Empire of Northern Europe.Denmark has not been able to fund a military able to defend her since 1848.
As I understand it, no contract has been signed for the jets and won't be till 2011 or 2012. The government just announced an intent to purchase, kinda like how they announced an intent to build Arctic patrol ships and replacement replenishment vessels, but no contracts have been signed for those yet.Assuming you're talking about the F-35, I think the real problem is it's an untendered contract, and taxpayers know that those lead to a sore behind.
Considering the defence cuts in Europe, I suspect we could get a good deal on Eurofighters, since countries ordering it would probably sell us their production slots. Likewise with the Rafale, since the French are desperate to sell those to someone.
In the case of the Swedish Gripen fighter, they probably would set up a factory to build them here, since that is what they are talking about doing in Brazil, if Brazil orders the Gripen. It would be a great fighter to use in the Arctic, since it can operate from rough fields.
The only way for a small country like Denmark to defend itself is to acquire nukes.Denmark has not been able to fund a military able to defend her since 1848.
All three could do the job although Gripen's single engine would be less favorable. The Rafale would be excellent and the French would do ANYTHING to sell those to us. If we bought Eurofighter we could get some HUGE airbus offset contracts as well.As I understand it, no contract has been signed for the jets and won't be till 2011 or 2012. The government just announced an intent to purchase, kinda like how they announced an intent to build Arctic patrol ships and replacement replenishment vessels, but no contracts have been signed for those yet.
Considering the defence cuts in Europe, I suspect we could get a good deal on Eurofighters, since countries ordering it would probably sell us their production slots. Likewise with the Rafale, since the French are desperate to sell those to someone.
In the case of the Swedish Gripen fighter, they probably would set up a factory to build them here, since that is what they are talking about doing in Brazil, if Brazil orders the Gripen. It would be a great fighter to use in the Arctic, since it can operate from rough fields.
B1A High altitude mach 2.5 bomberB1B was just an update of B1A which was early 70's tech....
B1B Combined altitude mach 1.25 bomber
Not much difference at all
