http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-planning-to-buy-super-hornet-fighter-jets-before-making-final-decision-on-f-35s-sources-say
>>30180092
>http://...liberals-planning-to-buy-super-hornet...
Makes sense. F35 too much dakka for liberals
>>30180092
>weedman buying super hornets as an interim measure
>can't and won't exclude F-35 from the competition for a Hornet replacement
It's fucking nothing.
>>30180092
So they will do what Australia did?
>>30180092
I bet they slapped something on the F35 to fuck with its stealth just like they do to the F22 in all of these competitions.
>>30180126
This
Somebody might get hurt.
Gotta love that rationale
>Hornets need immediate replacement due to airframe age
>despite the aircraft being overhauled to keep them flying until the F-35's ready
>but we need to spend less on the military
>so let's procure an entire new generation of aircraft marginally less expensive than the F-35 as an interim!
Like holy fuck did Canada elected a meme machine.
>>30180127
If they go all-in on a Super Bug fleet they won't have the money to buy F-35 until it's old kit. If they try to go 50/50 they waste amazing amounts of money for less capability. No matter what happens, this is going to provide lulz for /k/ for a whie
>>30180171
>Like holy fuck did Canada elected a meme machine.
I need to proofread my posts before hitting submit
>>30180135
Australia made that decision almost a decade ago.
>>30180182
Are the Liberals in Canada trying to follow Britain's Labour Party's example by turning defense procurement into a massive clusterfuck and then turning around and whining about responsible military spending the minute they lose office?
>>30180092
wattafuckinjoke.jpeg
GG Canada.
First your Navy's fucking demolished and now your AF is getting a similar treatment
>>30180203
The liberal party has been doing exactly that for almost 40 years.
>Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet reportedly discussed the issue last week, and while no formal decision was taken, one top-level official said: “They have made up their minds and are working on the right narrative to support it.”
Canada why?
>>30180570
Because Trudeau makes all of his decisions based on memes.
>>30180570
>needing a narrative
>current year not being enough
Cmon its CURRENT YEAR . We need to stop wasting money and get more super hornets after we legalize weed.
>>30180145
The F-22 was never allowed to be exported.
Plenty of countries wanted the F-22 and not even conduct trials but Congress banned exports.
so does that mean they will start accelerating their disposal plan for the CF-18's, which is basically just crashing them at airshows?
Reminder that Canada is buying a bunch of TAPV's without having decided what they are going to be used for.
>>30180092
>>30180570
>“They have made up their minds and are working on the right narrative to support it.”
Pierre Sprey will be involved in this somehow.
>>30180126
I dun get it they have basically the same payload and weapons, how does F-35 have more dakka?
in b4
>muh stealth
>>30180696
F18 doesn't have onboard cyber attack, and it's less effective for the same fuel load.
>>30180621
Where can I purchase this machine for my own legal driving use
>>30180696
>>30180718
The F-35 also has a more powerful gun.
>>30180621
keep the native Canadians at bay? suppress quebec?
>>30180739
both of those groups are doing pretty well at keeping themselves suppressed, what with the astronomical native suicide rates, and quebec just digging themselves further and further into a hole as they go.
>>30180171
Superbugs are $60.9 million vs over $100 million for the F-35. I'm not Vatnik (ptoooie) but not everyone needs F-35s. Who are the Canadians going to fight against with? Russia? Kek. A Pilatus PC-9 could do the job since the Rus would run out of money for gas halfway and have to hitchhike. Norway? Sure, if History Channel Vikings were real. The fighters will be used as bomb trucks to support whatever humankillitarian mission in bumfuckistan somewhere. In that case, getting F-35 is overkill.
>>30181069
>Superbugs are $60.9 million
didn't bother reading past here
>>30180770
Perhaps once the Frenchies get deep enough in that hole of theirs we can fill it with concrete.
>>30181069
F-35s are not 100 mil
>>30180182
Who cares when the end result is the US providing most of Canda's air capabilities anyways
>>30181397
What a sickening libtarded viewpoint to have
>>30180732
But, can it BRRRT?
>>30181069
>F-35s get 50% greater combat radius on just internal fuel
>Easier integration in joint operations with US forces
>Worse gun than on the F-35
>>30180221
America plz, save us from this liberal nightmare.
>HMCS Chicoutimi bursts into flames in '04
>supposedly going to be operational in 2017, 13 years later
>out of 4 subs only 1 is still operational
>only 1 missile destroyer, 2nd one was dry-docked permanently due to rust on the keel
>sole supply ship is fucked, have to borrow from the USN
>>30180092
>buying a less capable air frame that will soon be having its spare parts cut back as fewer people use it
>LETS BUY THIS JET THAT'S ABOUT TO END PRODUCTION! THAT WILL BE CHEAPER TO OPERATE THAN THIS JET THAT'S GOING TO BE USED BY EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR ALLIES
>>30180621
Probably just new toys for CSOR and the Dragoons to dick around with. Everyone else will still be stuck with the G-wagons.
>>30181928
They pulled the same shit with our navy when they went sub shopping in the late 80's.
>Should we buy some subs from the US or our NATO allies?
>NO! lets buy all 4 of the Upholder-class subs! UK is selling them at a bargain!
>but sir we need more than 4 subs, we need the 10 we proposed for the nuke-sub proga-
>I SAID BUY THE CHEAP ONES!!!
I can only imagine the horrors we would endure if we still operated carriers.
>>30180092
single engine planes btfo outside of /v/ tier simulations and nice weather countries
>>30182063
When will this meme die.
>>30182293
It died with the F-16, the Gripen, and with the Mirage 2000. Idiots like to turn back the clock though.
>>30181808
Yes 25mm brrt its bigger than the 18s 20mm.
>>30181928
The Super Hornet is going to be in service in large numbers for decades out though. There's some issues with this decision, but I don't think parts is one of them.
Why not Silent Eagles?
>>30182510
Because Super Hornets already exist and are used in large numbers.
>>30182510
>more expensive than F-35
>less capable
>>30180621
Last I heard it was supposed to be used as a recce vehicle to replace the Coyote.
>>30182337
Except the F-35 engine has been nothing but reliable
>>30182827
It's worked well enough for multiple trans-Atlantic crossings at this point.
>>30182827
That is a strange way of saying the F-35's engine has been extremely reliable.
![080608-F-0154C-105[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7DehZ4B.jpg "080608-F-0154C-105[1].jpg")
>>30180092
This is probably an obvious ploy to rig the upcoming competition in favour of the Super Hornet (to, in turn, avoid selecting the F-35, just to avoid breaking an election promise).
If Canada's buying an interim fleet, it's going to be ~24 jets, maybe a little more or quite possibly even less.
>Okay, so they're doing what Australia did
The catch here is that Australia had the F-111, with the purpose of being able to easily bomb Indonesia's capital. The Super Hornets, while not as fast or long ranged, have enough combat capability that they could easily enough fight through Indonesia's F-16s and handful of Su-27s / Su-30s, to achieve the same objective.
When the 2 squadrons of F-111s had to retire, they replaced them with 2 squadrons of Super Hornets.
So if Canada is buying Super Hornets to fill a capability gap over the next 5 years; there's 2 roles they have to fill:
1. National defense, in which case the majority of jets that intercept Russian bombers, etc will still be classic Hornets and if there's a WW3, 1 or 2 squadrons of Super Hornets is going to provide marginal benefit.
2. Participation in NATO strikes. When everyone started bombing Syria recently, Australia sent Super Hornets at first, just in case there were advanced threats (similar to how the US sent F-22s). After the first few months, the Super Hornets went home and ever since it's been classic Hornets rotating through Syria.
Here's my solution:
For #1, just negotiate for the US to fly Super Hornets or F-15s out of a Canadian airbase for the next 5 years, and/or just fly more up north. For #2, just don't participate in leading assaults over the next few years; the CF-188s can just come in later once the coast is clear.
Then in 2 years or whatever when the F-35 wins the competition, buy them, bring them in and continue with life.
Who knows though, perhaps they'll do what Australia originally intended and sell their Super Hornets after the interim.
Why can't Canada be more like Australia?
>>30183241
>the purpose of being able to easily bomb Indonesia's capital. The Super Hornets, while not as fast or long ranged, have enough combat capability that they could easily enough fight through Indonesia's F-16s and handful of Su-27s / Su-30s, to achieve the same objective.
If they took off at RAAF Curtin (the closest base), the trip to Jakarta is 2,238km. Super Hornet's combat radius is ~720km.
Basically, thats pure horseshit.
>>30183312
>what is aerial refueling
>>30183389
Dragon, pls
You know thats not really feasible just as much as I do
>>30183402
Why not? Yes it'd be risky if you were trying to get jets over to go and bomb Moscow, but this is Indonesia we're talking about; a tanker floating ~700km away with a few Super Hornets for CAP and a Wedgetail for AWACS is fairly safe.
>>30183263
Canada's gotten too used to relying on America for all their defense needs. Thanks to being on our doorstep, Canada's pretty integral to American strategic doctrine, so it's easier to just half-ass it and rely on America to do all the heavy lifting. Europe generally does the same.
Australia, on the other hand, can't rely on that. We might be on friendly terms with them, but America's not going to flip its shit if the Aussies can't patrol their skies for Russian bombers like we need the Canucks to do. That means they actually have to be mostly self-sufficient because they can't just tag onto a superpower to do all the work.
>>30183241
>F-35
>wins the competition
At what exactly?
>>30183461
>At what exactly?
Over the options they have? Literally fucking everything.
>>30183454
I wouldn't call stretching out an aircraft to go three times its combat radius or more and relying on tankers particularly 'safe'
I also just looked up the Indonesian AF though. Think I may have confused them with someone else because I thought they had more aircraft than that.
Guess it might be something they could do,
>>30183484
You do realise that the same jets fly multiple times that distance each year to participate in Red Flag right?
>>30183586
..Right, because ferrying jets is at all the same as performing an interdiction mission
>>30183635
What's your specific opposition to flying jets 3 times their combat radius?
I addressed combat risk above, the talk about the ferrying jets is me addressing the other risk of engine failure.
>>30183474
Ah I'm sorry for half-reading it.
Well, depends on how they'll use their air force. And whether or not better options are left. And I still think F-35 is not the best option.
[spoiler]Opt for Su-35[/spoiler]
They're buying F35s, go away.
>>30183702
>I still think F-35 is not the best option.
Based on what
>>30183729
Reality
>>30183681
Dragon you know more the rest of us combined. You should know what happened when the Argies tried that during the Falklands. (hint: they died)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKkcTpCur7g
>>30183729
Not that guy.
But S-300s are gonna be fucking everywhere, and I wouldn't want to rely on EW alone to prevent my shit from getting shot down. Especially if I don't have the US's capabilities.
>>30183759
So, fuck all then I take it.
git.
>>30183681
I overestimated the TNI-AU, but I still feel like its just a risky move.
>>30183779
You would be relying on EW, low observability, sensor networking and F18-like kinematics with the F-35.
Arguing that S-300s are going to everywhere is just an argument against the F/A-18.
>>30183766
Correct, which more or less proves my point - look at how far Britain managed to send its jets without landing.
>>30183809
Fair enough; it certainly would be risky, but at least the Super Hornets can defend themselves and others; the F-111s were screwed if they got too close to a fighter, or if they slowed down.
>>30183809
Well, there are exactly two VLO fighter aircraft on the market.
One of these is prohibited by law from export.
So if you're going to get into a 21st century fight, it's about the only game in town.
>>30183702
>>30180092
The only way this would be not full fucking retard is if Canada was buying Growlers.
>>30183779
How exactly are other aircraft going to have an easier time dealing with S-300/S-400 than the F-35?
>>30184064
That was a pro-F-35 post though.
IADS gonna rape anyone stupid enough to use 4th gen.
>>30183702
>[spoiler]Opt for Su-35[/spoiler]
...Seriously? A hardcore NATO member, Anglosphere nation flying a Russian plane?
>>30183263
because we didnt have a whites only immigration policy
>>30181069
>Rus would run out of money for gas halfway
If there is anything a gas station has in great abundance its gas
t. mccain
Ayiss.
Come to papa :3
>>30184144
That would be hilarious but I'm eager to see it.
Well, at least US will have their drill partner if anything counts.
>>30183702
>Opt for Su-35 despite never flying Russian Aircraft.
>Throw out every single one of your legacy systems. All of them. Munitions, maintenance redundancies.
>Instead of having the producing nation either in your country or right next door, with the technical expertise and availability that comes with that, you turn to the Russians.
>For a worse aircraft.
>The same (or worse) Aircraft that the #1 reason you fly interdiction flights for operates.
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read.
>>30184064
I'm assuming they will eventually. There's not a whole lot of reasons to be a Super Hornet customer and not buy Growlers as well.
>>30184437
But Put'n will make Maple Leaf Great Again.
>>30184603
I'm placing my faith in Peter McKay, if he wins the Conservative leadership he could become the Canadian Trump.
>>30183263
fair dinkum m8
>>30184437
also
>Canada goes to war against Russia in WW3
>Putin presses a button
>All of the Canadian Su-35s fall out of the sky
>>30181905
You mean 0 subs operational, as of a few days ago.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/hmcs-windsor-to-return-to-halifax-because-of-mechanical-problem
>>30184437
Oh and don't forget the best part
>engine lives an order of magnitude less than those on the Hornets
Seriously, Russian engines are shit. You'd be lucky to get 1,000 hours out of their engines before having to completely replace them.
>>30184556
I think you're giving Dudeweed and his government far too much credit.
>>30184437
To be fair, the USCG did use the Mi-24 at one point.
>>30184987
I think the damn things come with four spares, and you have to pull and overhaul them all twice as you rotate them in service, vs an F-16's single engine lasting its service life with only one overhaul.
>>30180135
Aussie's made the decision when the f-35 was still at lest a decade away from entering service. Aussies also held a provision in the purchase arrangement allowing for the super bug to be converted into growlers once the jsf came into service.
>>30182062
>Should we buy some subs from the US or our NATO allies?
the uk is a nato ally. what?
>I SAID BUY THE CHEAP ONES!!!
there was nothing cheap about the upholders. at the time they were basically the most advanced diesel electric in the world. their one job was to shadow soviet submarines in giuk.
the problem with them is that you didn't know what the fuck you were doing. you sailed them across the atlantic with the hatches open and killed a guy, and then you tried to gut them to replace the state of the art bespoke electronics with local less-capable systems without doing any sort of integration studies before hand. canada tried to replace the torpedoes without bothering to check if the new ones would even fit in the hull. you then whined to the british about the fact they weren't going to fix your mess.
don't blame the bongs, they were positively a gift. you fucked that one up.
>>30187345
A Hind D? Colonel, What's a Russian gunship doing here.
>>30180126
>If you achieve air superiority, your enemy wins
>t. Justin Trudeau
What did he mean by this?
>>30187530
>canada tried to replace the torpedoes without bothering to check if the new ones would even fit in the hull.
wouldn't have been an issue if the brits were willing to sell Spearfish.
>>30187345
Now that's a good one, pity that movie has never been released in languages other than Russian
>>30187615
Canada is only capable of whining and blaming superior nations, such as the US, UK, France and Australia (yes even fucking Australia) for their incompetence
>>30187561
You mean
>If you kill your enemies, they win.
Obviously it's talking about martyrs and Islamic insurgencies.
>>30187561
2016
>>30180171
>marginally more expensive
80% more expensive isn't marginal.
>>30180221
Considering the CF-18 is falling apart currently, I would argue that this is improving their airforce.
>>30187820
There isn't an 80% difference.
Feel free to tell us your pricings for us to laugh at.
>>30181369
Yep. The A is more than $100 million and the B and C are about $20 million more than the A.
>>30187834
Hasn't been over $100m since 2013, and its still in LRIP.
>>30187828
Why don't you?
>>30187845
You need a source for that.
>>30187852
>Burden of proof applies to others, but not me!
fuck off back to your hole
>>30187852
For the F-35A:
In 2014, Australia paid $11.5B USD (including $1.5B USD of base redevelopments not just for the F-35) for 58 F-35As for a price of $198m USD each.
http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20140423/DEFREG03/304230023/Australia-Purchases-58-More-F-35s
For the Super Hornet:
Australia paid $6 billion AUD for 24 Super Hornets, for a price of $193 million each. ($4.64 billion USD on the time of announcement; 06 May 2007)
http://web.archive.org/web/20110312164435/http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMinSpeechtpl.cfm?CurrentId=6442
http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/historical-data.html
Convert that to 2014 dollars (when the 58 F-35As were ordered by Australia) and that's $5.12 billion USD, or $213.3 million per Super Hornet.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
>>30187876
F-35 A at the most recent price was about $94 million.
B was $104 million
C was $108 million
The engines were
A $15 million
B $25 million
C $21 million
This also leaves out a few miscellaneous items that are added to the airframe by the time it reaches "flyaway" status.
>>30187971
The official numbers in America are $60.9 million for a 2013 flyaway Superhornet.
We don't even have flyaway prices for the F-35 of any variant. Only estimates around $110 million for the F-35A.
Trying to compare Australian purchases to Canadian purchases is absurd.
There are so many differences between the Aussie F-35 purchase and Superhornet purchase that it loses any attempted analogy towards Canada.
I pay attention to flyaway costs. And so do other nations procurement departments.
>>30187971
By similar calculation, the UAE's F-16E/F Block 60s total out to up to $200m each as well.
>>30187623
what the everloving fuck am i looking at?
>>30188031
>We don't even have flyaway prices for the F-35 of any variant. Only estimates around $110 million for the F-35A.
Final complete F-35A target price with engine is $84m.
>>30187985
Source on those engine costs? Based off these figures:
www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/03/25/f35-costs-cracks-development-/70392734/
http://aviationweek.com/defense/pentagon-lockheed-sign-f-35-lrip-8-deal
The engines should be roughly:
A = $13.2 million
B = $32.0 million
C = $13.3 million
>>30188031
Procurement costs are more important seeing as they're what you actually pay. Australia is a great reference for Canada as they're the only ones outside of the US that have bought both, and in similar numbers to what Canada is talking about doing. Both deals also have similar equipment included (ie, they don't include cruise missiles or frigates or other miscellaneous stuff - 12 of the 24 RAAF Super Hornets to have mods to make them easier to convert to Growlers, but those mods only cost about a million per jet.
Also, the $108 million figure isn't an estimate, it's a contractual sales agreement for jets being produced today. Normally Lockheed and contractors obtain a profit from that figure, but if the cost to produce the jets goes above that, they eat the cost out of their profit margin / pay for any post-contractual overruns.
>>30188053
And that'd be correct; I do think though that they helped pay for some of the R&D to create the F-16E variant though.
>We need a fighter with long range
>it needs to be multirole
>And it needs to be able future proof so we don't have to buy a whole new fleet in 10 years
>Lets buy another 4th gen fighter with less range and is at the limit of what you can cram into the airframe!
>Dude
>Weed,
Canada is the worst country
>>30188086
>A = $13.2 million
>B = $32.0 million
>C = $13.3 million
How come the A and C model have different pricing? The B I get, but not the other two. Its only 100k give or take, but still. Added cost for corrosion-protection?
>>30188149
Pretty much exactly that.
>>30188146
At this point, the F-35 simply doesn't work as advertised. Buying an interim aircraft makes sense.
>>30188233
Not really.
While the CF-18s are old as fuck, so are F-16s/F-18s, and they're just going to wait to be replaced.
Canada has no pressing security issues, and in the long-term this is just a more expensive option.
>>30188233
No, it doesn't, because there will be no Super Duper Hornet, which means when the spare parts factories get shut down Canada is fucked. It's like these countries buying old ass carriers from other countries, it makes no sense because soon the maintenance costs will outpace tell procurement costs.
>>30188146
canada is not in a fucking war why the fuck would they need so much arms?
fucking manchildren
>>30188269
I didn't say anything about the ASH. Just the regular old F-18E/F is good enough for now.
>>30187345
I-I'm not sure how I feel about this...
>>30188251
The RCAF needs new aircraft badly.
They've needed new aircraft badly for a long time.
Buying new aircraft is something that should have been done a while ago.
And right now, the F-35A simply isn't ready. The F-18E/F is ready.
>>30184437
>Su-35
>Worse aircraft
Lol.
>>30188302
They have indeed needed new aircraft.
F/A-18E/F aren't NEW aircraft. They're new airframes, which won't be good for anything but COIN in the near future. They're not even as efficient as other aircraft for that, either.
All this purchase leads to is a more expensive and less capable RCAF to bridge a "capability gap" that doesn't really exist.
>>30188149
Corrosion protection, and the engine has to withstand the shock of catapult launches and being at full afterburner while coming to a hard stop.
>>30188313
>They're new airframes, which won't be good for anything but COIN in the near future.
Based on what? A superbug is as good as any plane that the Ruskis have in the near future.
>>30188420
>A superbug is as good as any plane that the Ruskis have in the near future.
kek, ho-kay.
>>30188031
The offical unit cost of a Super Hornet for the USN in FY2017 is $77.8 million.
http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2017/Navy/stamped/U_P40_0145_BSA-1_BA-1_APP-1506N_PB_2017.pdf
>>30188420
>A superbug is as good as any plane that the Ruskis have in the near future.
>in the near future.
Almost like with aircraft purchases, you think ahead more than a couple of years or something!
They have arguable parity right now, let alone by the middle of the service life of the aircraft.
>>30188308
The Su-35 is an inferior aircraft to an F-35A.
>>30188282
>for now
But soon it won't be, and Canada really doesn't need any new jets between now and the F-35. You guys pulled out of Syria, why does it matter?
>>30188454
Yeah, nah.
>>30188577
Really convinced me with those logical arguments, fucciboi
>>30188065
>prediction
Hmmm....
>>30188086
My source was 2014 numbers for that contract. According to your numbers I'm pretty close.
The comparison between Australia and Canada and the F-18 and F-35 is flawed.
>>30188478
>But soon it won't be
Why?
>>30188600
You seem to be under false impression that people owe you a conviction.
>>30188302
>And right now, the F-35A simply isn't ready. The F-18E/F is ready.
Jets don't get made instantaneously; any order that Canada makes, even if it were somehow part of the current LRIP 10 negotiations, would be produced and delivered after the F-35 has completed development and testing; same goes for any Super Hornets that are ordered.
>>30188276
Si vis pacem, para bellum
>>30188645
Learn english.
and sure you do. If you're bothering to make an assertion might as well bring even a shred of evidence or insight into how you arrived to it, otherwise its just a pointless post.
>>30188636
Why wouldn't it be?
These aren't new aircraft designs, and if you're expecting them to serve as long as CF-18s, you're asking them to be in service until ~2048. They're being replaced by the USN for a reason.
If all you want them for is COIN and light interception duties, the CF-18s can cover that until the F-35s take over.
>>30188630
>Hmmm....
They matched target price at LRIP 4, and been under at every stage since, so it's not that hard to believe they can hit that once they're at the point of cranking out 3000 fighters.
>>30188630
It's not a perfect comparison, but flyaway costs aren't any better, especially when the USN Super Hornet flyaway cost has increased in the past couple of years; the FY2017 budget has Super Hornets at $77.8 million per jet.
www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/17pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf#page=53
>>30188636
Because America makes spare parts. You're buying an aging airframe who's spares will soon be cut off, meaning that the longer you use them, the more expensive they're going to be to operate. By the time the the F-35 starts to take over, the Canadians will be paying more per flight hour than if they had just bought the F-35s to begin with.
>>30188674
And sure I don't. It is obvious for any person with a brain.
>>30188793
>Its so obvious!
"Yeah, nah"
>>30188799
It is. For any person with a brain, at least.
>>30188804
Yeah, nah
>>30188269
It's not so much that the factories will get shut down as they'll scale back tremendously as their largest consumer, the US begins to replace it's F-18 fleet (Superbugs will be around for a while, but the F-18 Hornet is what the majority of those interchangable parts are ordered for). The price of those parts will continue to rise as time goes on and Boeing supplied training material and courses won't be as plentiful either.
>>30188793
>No actual argument or facts to debate point
>Just "hurr no brain lol"
>>>/reddit/
>>30188845
There'll still be demand for Growler components, but not as much once F-35s start mass production.
>>30188872
Growlers are produced by Boeing.
>>30187345
>some metrosexual bisexual surfer 420 ban the guns smoke the buds lmao gets dragged out to sea in LA
>a FUCKING HIND shows up to rescue his worthless liberal ass
As a commiefornian, this makes me hard
>>30188883
Non-Growler SHornets are too, so there'll still be Hornet parts demand until that gets fully replaced, is my point.
Maybe Boeing will get its head out of its ass for F/A-XX.
>>30188941
All I'm saying is that they're getting slightly more mission capabilities for a ton more money in the long run.
>>30188156
Wonder how interchangeable the A and C is. Here in Norway our main fighter base will be right on the coast, so there will be a lot of salty moist air. The A-engine might suffer some from that.
>>30189050
F-35Cs have been flown with A variant engines in the past, so it's not inconceivable that they could also fit C engines to A's. That said, most modern jet engines are filled with metals that don't corrode that easily; throw in a bird bath and it should be fine.
