Cf-35 Jsf

[Rollingthunder]

9 billion , 65 aircraft, do we need it?



How well is it going to operate in high Arctic?

Interesting wings.....Starfighter?

[clunckdriver]

History is full of "Multi Role" aircraft from the BF110, to the F111, which although able to fill multi roles did none of them well, the F35 will Im afraid be another example of this, as to flying a S/E fighter in our climate and geography it looks like we didnt learn much from the 104 experience. The very high per unit cost of the aircraft will make our present crop of senior military brass reluctant to employ them to their limits, to bend one will not be a career enhancing move for sure.There are aircraft out there costing much less and just as good, {which also function in minus 45} however the ghosts of the Cold War still linger in the coridors of Ottawa and NDHQ, one only has to look at the C17 purchase to see this, now of course if offered say fifty hours on type I might change my view!

[PaperTiger]

Not really intended for use in Canada is it ? If we want to continue in the Big Boys' NATO club we have to have kit which will impress the natives during world-wide umm... peacekeeping jaunts.

[albatross]

Well - I just want the CAF to have the best.
If we want them to go to war they deserve to be in the best we can provide.

[engfireleft]

So what happens if the sole engine in the new F-35 Lightning fails?

“It won’t,” says Defence Minister Peter MacKay

Apparently the Minister knows nothing about machinery. Nor does he consider some external factor damaging the one engine this aircraft relies on.

But government officials say a single-engine configuration will leave the F-35 lighter and more agile to manoeuvre.

What idiot thought that up as a rationale? I cannot comment on the tactical capabilities of the plane or its weapons load, but the achilles heel of that machine in Canada is its single engine. Arctic sovereignty is a major priority in this country now and in the future, and that airplane is simply not suited for it.

[Jlabossi]

It's all about NORAD. Why we need a multi role fighter to provide for NORAD though, I'm not sure. The likelihood of Canada employing a ground attack aircraft like that seems pretty unlikely.

As for the C-17 (and the Chinook, I might add), it looks like it's doing a pretty good job as employed now. The C130J will also be a great upgrade from where we are now.

So, looking at the success of those sole source purchases, why not new F-18s?

[Idle Thrust]

Our AirForce has always been top heavy with fighter pilots. They promote their own because fighter pilots walk on water.
So it should come as no surprise that they want the latest and the greatest fighter.

[clunckdriver]

Idle, its not a real fighter, its a "Multi Role Aircraft", Thats code for it wont be very good at anything, the F22 is a real fighter aircraft, not designed to kill tanks,blow up buildings, or all that other stuff, just blow the head of the enemy pilot, having said that, the best way to destroy the other guys airforce is get them on the ground, remember 1967?