http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-refuses-to-rule-out-f-35-from-fighter-jet-replacement-competition-1.3375507
>In a conference call from Erbil in northern Iraq today, Harjit Sajjan said replacing the nation’s 77 Boeing CF-18A/Bs in a “timely manner” is his focus, not ruling a particular aircraft in or out.
>“My focus is about replacing our CF-18, and we’re going through a proper process to make sure we have the right requirements so we have the right capability, not only for our country but for how we relate to NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) and our commitments to NATO,” says Sajjan, who assumed the role in November following a change of government.
>“We’re going to do this in a responsible manner.”
>Sajjan indicated that the new government would not actively block the F-35 from participating.
>“The question always comes up about whether it’s F-35 or another type of aircraft,” he says. “This is not about the F-35. My mandate and my role is about replacing the F-18.
>“We are committed to replacing the F-18s in a timely manner so that we do not create a capability gap that has been created in the past with our ships.”
isnt F-35 the queen of hangar?
lol good
This doesn't mean they're likely going to buy it, only that they wouldn't rule it out.
Super Hornet will still likely win.
>>52565950
>likely
>>52565950
>USA army protects Canada by default
>Canada stilt buys weapons
meme country
>>52565950
Doesn't say anywhere they will buy it. Only that it will be allowed to participate like everyone else.
Chances are you can forget about those orders.
>>52565950
>canada mentioned in the title
>quotes from some arab in northern iraq
am I being rused?
>>52565950
It's for the best, not buying it would have been pants on hands retarded.
What's more important is that it shows once again the Libs are complete liars. Now it's time to sit back and wait for inevitable corruption scandel.
>>52570854
>Chances are you can forget about those orders.
It's not like the US cares about 60 odd planes out of thousands. Canada should buy F-35s because they're the best available plane. I love Super Hornets but Canada doesn't have the money to buy a new plane every decade like the US does, we need something that will be advanced enough now that it will stay relevant in the sky for decades to come.
If it isn't the F-35, Typhoon or Rafale I will be disappointed. I especially prefer the F-35C due to its ability to operate with the US Navy in a SHTF scenario and because of cost.
>>52571161
Don't the Canadians want cold weather upgrades?
Also, the C seems expensive considering the extra training to land on carriers which they aren't likely to ever land and take-off from
>>52566043
No, the F-35 is apparently really friendly to crews and light on maintenance compared to most front line fighters (F-22, F-15s and going back F-14s.)
Compared to the Super Hornets though it's probably a wash at best though, Super Hornets are famous for their ease of maintenance.
Thing is though Canada does not fly Super Hornets, we fly legacy Hornets that have way too many flight hours on the airframes. Fighter jets are like anything, the older it is the more time in the shop it needs. Undoubtedly the F-35 would be an improvement on the current situation maintenance wise.
>Liberals lied once again
WOW WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT WAS POSSIBLE? HOLY SHIT I AM SOOOO SHOCKED
>>52571278
Yes but the C offers many of those upgrade natively, the reinforced landing gear and larger winf area for instance. There would probably be more tweaks needed (just as the CF-18 got) but the C is the version closest to the requirements.
As far as operating from US carriers yes, that would be a huge shift in training and doctrine and I'm advocating it currently. I simply like the capability in, as I said, a SHTF scenario.
Realistically the only way for the RCAF to get to Europe if all hell broke loose is with US help. Having two ways of getting there, or manuevering on a global theater generally (mid-air tankers or by ship,) has far more strategic advantages than just one.
>>52571409
Ikr? As I said here
>>52570998
The next step is the scandal.
What do you think? My money is on 16 months or so.
>>52571536
>Realistically the only way for the RCAF to get to Europe if all hell broke loose is with US help.
What? Canada doesn't have air tankers?
They're not very expensive, you know. "Realistically" Canada doesn't need US help to get to Europe, that's crazy.
>>52571536
>and I'm advocating it currently.
*I'm NOT advocating it currently
>>52565950
Liberals said they would not follow through on Harper's contract, not that they would not put it back up for review.
I expect they will not buy it because of the political cost, but keeping it out would piss of LM and the F-35 producers in Canada.
So lead America on for a couple years and then just buy the super hornet.
>>52571648
We have 5 CC-130s converted to be used as tankers which is wildly inadequate in a SHTF scenario.
Another reason I like the F-35 (Super Hornets can do this too incidentally) is they can be used as small tankers . The F-35 has massive internal fuel stores, when you slap drop tanks on them combined with their ability to refuel each other you can stretch their already large range even further.
And yes we pretty much do need US help to move large amounts of heavy equipment that far. Again, 5 jerry rigged tankers is not nearly enough.
>>52571718
Not buying it would fuck over all the Canadian contractors and piss away all the money already invested.
The F-35 is the right call, the only one that really approaches it is the Tranche III Typhoon.
Though I know my birth country well enough we'll probably just settle for fucking Super Hornets and idiotically expect them to be viable for the next 40 years because DUDE WEED and because it's 2015.
>>52571907
You said the RCAF needs US help to get to Europe. What heavy equipment does the RCAF have which can't be transported? All you need to do is refuel your fighters en route. If the C-130s aren't good enough then it's not hard or expensive to buy proper tankers.
Relying on the US for something as simple flying to Europe is pathetic
stealth is just a gimmick
stupid overpriced shit...
>>52572088
You're misunderstanding me completely: I'm not saying we should rely on the US I'm saying currently, as in right now, we would be forced to because our ability to project beyond our borders without US help in any large scale in woefullt inadequate.
I absolutely agree with you, more tankers need to be purchased, plain and simple. I was not arguing otherwise just making notes of the realities as they stand currently.
That said; even if we did somehow forget that it's 2015 and start spending money on our military I would still argue that there are strategic advantages in being able to operate alongside the USN in a SHTF scenario. NATO inter-operability is a large, but often forgotten, strategi asset for the alliance as a whole.
It's the same way how American and British F-35Bs are both made more deadly and versatile by their ability to operate from each other's ships, and use each other's weapons, if need be.
>>52572388
>stealth is just a gimmick
Here we go..
>>52565950
>le weed man changing his mind again
>lol conservatards, we dunt need new planes now
>lol jk yes we do
>dem conservatives r raciss! we need 25,000 refugees now!
>what? we can't take 25,000 in 2 months? o-okay 2,000 will do I guess
>just lil deficits guys
>lol k maybe bigger deficits, but weed tho amirite?
>middle class tax cuts will be revenue-neutral :D
>haha kiddign
>ids 2015 btw, led me spend ur moneys :DDD
>>52572460
Ok sure but in this SHTF scenario, which is apparently going down in Europe, you would want to get to Europe as quickly as possible right? You do that by flying there, not hitching a ride with USN.
NATO inter-operability is about more than naval forces, it also cover air forces. The USAF will base a couple squadrons of F-35As in Britain, and some European air forces will use F-35As as well. There's your inter-operability. You enhance it by beefing up your aerial logistics.
Operating with the USN is also a nice thing, don't get me wrong, but the USN carriers are *not* the first responders in the kind of SHTF scenario you're thinking about.
>>52572854
I'm not saying a the USN are the first responders, what I'm saying is that more options breed more versatility. We can't know where the front will be in the next major war, for all we know 20, 30 years down the line, whatever, the RCAF may face a scenario where transport via carrier is advantageous.
Why overlook the option as a strategic asset when the C already meets the RCAFs requirements the best out of all three versions? More options are always positive.
And I mentioned Europe because the only way Canada ever faces a SHTF scenario is going to be in the event of a WW level European/NATO conflict.
>>52572831
>>lol conservatards, we dunt need new planes now
I knew they were lying when they said it because they're Libs and their lips were moving but I was so fucking furious hearing this shit on the campaign.
The only way you could logically argue that we do not need new planes is if you admit that you are okay with Canadian pilots dying due to unsafe and overflown aircraft.
I fucking raged. Absolutely revolting and irresponsible rhetoric.
>>52565950
Also I just want to add that it looks really good in seafoam green.
Someone needs to design RAM in that colour.
>>52573159
>We can't know where the front will be in the next major war, for all we know 20, 30 years down the line, whatever, the RCAF may face a scenario where transport via carrier is advantageous.
As far as I'm aware, Canada's obligations are: defend North America with the US, and defend NATO allies with the rest of NATO. Aircraft carriers are completely unnecessary for both of those obligations, as there are lots of friendly air bases in North America and Western Europe (and Eastern Europe for that matter..)
If you're talking about the F-35 for Canada, and you're thinking specifically about NATO, then SURELY the F-35A is the obvious choice as it's used by more NATO allies and it's the most common F-35 variant the USA will have in Europe as well.
The occasions when you'd use an aircraft carrier rather than fly there, will not be NATO-related.
I also think this is wrong:
>the only way Canada ever faces a SHTF scenario is going to be in the event of a WW level European/NATO conflict.
If there is a war in Europe, say with Russia and involving NATO, that's very unlikely to be a world war. I find it difficult to imagine a modern day European war spreading out of Europe. It's not like WW1 or WW2 when the European countries had empires.
>>52573649
But the F-34A does not meet Canadian requirements, the landing gear is not strong enough to operate on arctic runways and the wing area is less than the C.
We would buy the C anyway, inter-operability with the USN is just a nice bonus. The same exact requirements exist as when we bought the Hornets. I don't understand how you can't see this..
>>52573649
>If there is a war in Europe, say with Russia and involving NATO, that's very unlikely to be a world war. I find it difficult to imagine a modern day European war spreading out of Europe. It's not like WW1 or WW2 when the European countries had empires.
Also I should clarify: I meant war in Europe on the scale of a WW, not necessarily a literal world war.
>>52573819
According to this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement
The Canadian government was planning on getting the F-35A model. They were just going to modify it slightly to make it fit requirements.
>>52574046
I understand that but if you look at the numbers it becomes clear it's cheaper to buy the C which has many of those upgrades already included than go with the A. Politicians are one thing when you're talking about such an early stage. Canadian Forces brass and analysts have always preferred the C for Canada.
I presume expert opinions would have won out in the long run. Beside F-35 orders can be changed from version to version even after they're signed.
Anyway, since you seem to be so passionate about this, why do you think the A would be better for Canada than the C?
>>52574233
As far as I know, the only edge that the F-35A has over the F-35C is the internal cannon. The F-35C has larger wingspan and a somewhat bigger fuel tank and thus greater range.
>>52574233
>why do you think the A would be better for Canada than the C?
It's cheaper, available much sooner, it's by far the most numerous on the production line, in the US and in NATO. It doesn't have stuff you don't need, like folding wings. While cooperation with the US is a high priority for Canada, inter-operability with the USN carrier fleet is very low priority. The USAF is much more important to the RCAF.
Perhaps the most important factor here is the first part, the price, which is presumably why the Canadian government always talks about the F-35A cost.
>>52574233
The C also has arrestor gear and folding wings dumbass. That shit would be useless. Also it's more likely you will be landing on PLAN carriers than USN carriers with the number of chinks you import
See, weedman is interesting. I'm still not convinced on him, but hes made a couple smart changes, including holding off on refugees to properly screen them. That's a real oath break from what he said originally, and I'll give him credit for that. This again is another spot where he's done okay. Originally liberals weren't a bad party, but they've been awful for the last decade. I never voted for him btw, I voted Stevey, so its a conservative opinion
>>52574481
>It's cheaper,
Not a convincing argument as far as I'm concerned. I am against any arguments in the Canadian Forces where capability is sacrificed for cost at this point. We've done that for too long and the current state of the Canadian Forces is what we have to show for it.
> available much sooner,
Valid point, but one I think can't be easily remedied: the USMC will be retiring hundreds of F-18s in the upcoming years, many with reasonably low hours on them. Leasing a couple dozen is not by any means impractical or unfeasible and I know the US would give the RCAF a very good deal to do so.
>it's by far the most numerous on the production line, in the US and in NATO.
Doesn't really matter if it's an inferior producr for our needs and logistical requirements are not a concern for us when it comes to parts. If you're talking about economies of scale in reference to the price of parts then we're picking hairs here. There is still a lot of parts commonality between all F-35 models, and there will still be hundreds of F-35Cs bought regardless to depteciate the prive of C specific parts.
>it doesn't have stuff you don't need, like folding wings.
What does this even mean? Fucking Hornets have folding wings. What's important is that it has shit we DO need like reinforced landing gear and a larger wing surface.
>>52574670
Anon, you're drunk.
Reread your post and the one you responded to.
>>52574884
>Valid point, but one I think can't be easily remedied
*can be easily remedied
>>52574479
>As far as I know, the only edge that the F-35A has over the F-35C is the internal cannon
That's all I can think of too, and internal canons are a meme for people in their 70s anyway. Give me the wing and the fuel.
>>52574884
>I am against any arguments in the Canadian Forces where capability is sacrificed for cost at this point. We've done that for too long and the current state of the Canadian Forces is what we have to show for it.
Indeed, but you have a mass problem right? You have to think within the budget set by your government otherwise you enter fantasy land and may as well start talking about TIE fighters. If you can afford 65 F-35As then you *definitely* can't afford enough F-35Cs. If Trudeau increases the defence budget then your argument becomes more persuasive, but only *if*.
65 F-35As
The UK will keep 18 of its 138 Bs for training. Assume Canada takes 10 for training, that leaves 55 left. That's like 3 frontline squadrons if you want to keep some in reserve.
Barely enough, and you will lose at least another squadron by going for the C variant. Price is important. You need enough planes.
>>52575221
>you can afford 65 F-35As then you *definitely* can't afford enough F-35Cs.
But that's the thing; we can, easily. We could easily afford twice that amount if need be.
I refuse to pretend otherwise because entertaining the insanities of those on the left have left us with 2/3 of the Canadian Forces being a moribund decrepit disaster that is unable to do its duty as assigned to it by the people and Parliament.
>>52575221
>>52575578
Also it should be noted that the C unit price WILL drop down significantly just as the B did and the A is about to.
I'd wager the second that starts happening is when the political narrative shifts to the C as an alternative; which Brass has wanted from the beginning, and which can now be justified to the ignorant masses due to the "rapidly falling price."
See politicians aren't retarded, they just play retards on tv.
>tfw no one wants to talk about planes
I-I love planes desu
