What fighter should Canada buy?
A-10 because they're going be removing a lot of kebab at home if Le Weed Man keeps importing them.
>>30526005
F-35A, as originally planned. Best long term option they have.
>>30526005
Tie Defenders
never forget
>>30526327
Naw, even though our allies want to all get X-wings, Canada's government is fine with either Y-wings or Z95 head hunters.
>>30526352
That it was mediocre? We won't.
>>30526005
You posted it
>>30526352
>Canadian Intensifies
>>30526352
Why are you posting a MiG-25
>>30526352
>>30526402
>>30526352
>>30526402
>>30526427
Something twin engined given the size of Canada,
>>30526402
>>30526427
>>30526441
was this a legit proposal, or just someones dream?
can't you just build one?
>>30526005
IAR 95.
It's not fully developed, the project was cancelled and there isn't a single one in existence but hey, for some investment we'll give them 5% off for every purchase after that.
I'm sure they'd buy some, too.
>>30526005
Nothing, Canadians are shitty people and don't deserve anything better than rotting CF-18s.
>>30526528
That is definitely an F-5 knock-off.
I mean, just look at it.
>>30526635
F-5?
You mean F-15?
Anyways, I heard multiple people say this, but the argument always seemed daft to me. It's quite different from an F-15, if it was a knock-off you'd think it would look more similar...
>>30526479
Both.
The design team (led by a guy named Joe Green, an artist that has LOTS of contacts in Ottawa and Alberta) is based in Edmonton.
Has been receiving engineering aid from retired engineers that worked on the YF-23 Black Widdow II and professors in various fields. The original version of this groups "Super Arrow" looked VERY alike to the YF-23, but it's changed considerablely over the last few years.
As for "legitimate proposal", yes.
They have all the paperwork in order as well as the backing of three retired RCAF officers + the Minister of Transportation likes it (and has a model of it at home).
They're just waiting for the "open competition" that Justin Trudeau promised to kick off.
They are building a too scale UAV model / mockup as of right now, if I remember right it's a 1:8.
>>30526705
>>30526479
OH, and it's being kinda crowd funded / funded by his own private enterprise.. which is commemorative RCAF silver coins / watches / memorabilia.
That is until the (hopeful) government bucks take over.
BeaverWorks Mint
>>30526402
>>30526427
>>30526441
... that's a big bird.
>>30526668
Wow, you really don't know anything do you?
Have you ever seen an F-15?
Pic related. It's an F-5.
>>30526635
Looks more like an F-4/F-16 hybrid to me. Intakes are too forward and high, like an F-4. Wings, tail, and engine have obvious resemblance to an F-16.
>>30526461
> single vs twin engine
> geographic size of country
Those don't have anything to do with each other
>>30526705
I love the Super Arrow idea, but didn't our faggot PM recently basically throw out his promise of a mostly open competition (I.e., open, except the F-35 isn't allowed in) and back the Super Bug?
That being said, it looks like an Ace Combat super plane.
>>30529087
What they did was let the F-35 in because the people who actually knew shit got them to back off, but they want to buy Super Bugs as an interim fighter.
>>30526402
>>30526427
>>30526441
Looks more of a blackbird type MACH 5+ aircraft.
>>30528744
I would prefer good fighter, not an overrated flanker thats shit at air superiority and multi role.
>>30529136
Ah, we know they'd buy the Bug, then go "looks like these work just fine, no need for anything else lolololol".
>Griffin replacement never
>>30526352
I wish canada could have a good modern military, then we could rule the world together
>>30526005
Hmmmm...looks familiar
>>30526402
LONG
O
N
G
PLANE
L
A
N
E
>>30529713
It looks like a PAK-FA, except not shit and somehow sexier. FUND IT.
>>30526461
The F-35 has some pretty extreme range. It's damn near a baby bomber.
>>30526135
You are human garbage.
I just assume Trudeau is a dumb fucking cuck. Canada's Defense Department was the F35.
>>30526352
Canada, you aerospace industry is dead and gone. It's time for you to move on.
>>30529713
that looks like a YF23 not line a f35.
>>30529713
>YF-23 in USCG colors and Canadian markings
>>30530034
As a strike fighter, it has an okay range.
As a fighter, it has an excellent range.
But I wouldn't call it "extreme". Still way lower than previous aircraft like the A-6E.
>>30526005
Gripen E
nimble multirole craft that's fully NATO compatible, and able to land on any straight stretch of decent road you can point at.
>>30530805
With delta wings friend
>>30530912
Not enough range for canadian wide open spaces.
>>30526441
That is pretty impressive. I have no idea how the engines get enough air but I didn't design the thing.
>>30526154
This, everything else will be obsolete.
Do Canada have plans to replace their Subs?
>>30526005
F-35 is most reasonable option. F-18e/f is going to be obsolete as fuck pretty soon and manufacturers of Rafale and Typhoon have supply security issues even in peace time.
>>30531551
well Canada has been doing that to the injuns for like 3 or 4 decades
been working well
>>30526005
What Canada should do is develop their own fighter jet. To keep costs down, all they would have to do is leave out radar, which is useless anyway.
>>30531630
>been working well
>>30532320
Not our fault the chugs can't utilize the wealth of free gibsmedat properly.
>>30526635
That's the fuselage from an F4 with the wiht and tails from an F16
>>30532299
>keep costs down
>develop their own
>>30530034
I'm not an f-35 hater but I do wonder what it's purpose is.
As a bomber is it really worth it? For removing kebab it's ok but is it worth anything facing a real war? You have your aircraft carriers packed with f-35s that can't get into range because of anti-ship missiles. Wouldn't it be better to design a pure air superiority fighter?
But... how the fuck does that work now? Do bombers need escorts? Would they even be able to protect the bombers? Facing SAMs and AA launched missiles what the fuck is the point of an airsuperiority fighter when they have nothing to fight?
At that point, what about anti-missile drones used as decoys?
Why even use bombers then? If it's too risky to send a $1.2 billion dollar B-2 bomber to drop it's JDAMs why not just use a tomahawk?
>>30534849
>For removing kebab it's ok but is it worth anything facing a real war?
You have it backwards. Just about anything can work as a bomb truck. However, you really want VLO features and superior sensors to fight a modern IADS.
> You have your aircraft carriers packed with f-35s that can't get into range
They have a longer range than F-18s
>anti-ship missiles
Are only as good as the sensor coverage the targets for them
>Do bombers need escorts?
We have multiroles for most attack missions. The F-4 Phantom could drop as much as B-17 back in the day.
>Facing SAMs and AA launched missiles what the fuck is the point of an airsuperiority fighter when they have nothing to fight?
I don't see your point
>At that point, what about anti-missile drones used as decoys?
Probably under development, but electronic warfare exists with things like the Growler.
>Why even use bombers then? If it's too risky to send a $1.2 billion dollar B-2 bomber to drop it's JDAMs why not just use a tomahawk?
Calm down there. You're conflating a few things
>>30534849
>As a bomber is it really worth it?
Yes. In full stealth it's similar to an F-117's payload AND has a pair of AMRAAMs. And in a permissive environment can haul more than every A-series. Plus, with its far more advanced sensors and comms integration, it's more likely to get it right first shot.
>For removing kebab it's ok but is it worth anything facing a real war?
Anything can remove Kebab, Anon, even a Super Taco. You need a high performance stealth plane for Rollback doctrine of dismantling IADS and deep strike interdiction.
>You have your aircraft carriers packed with f-35s that can't get into range because of anti-ship missiles.
Bullshit.
>Wouldn't it be better to design a pure air superiority fighter?
Not really. The F-35 can do that just fine, AND still do ground strike. While the F-22, when its primary mission is over, will be stuck doing limited A2G.
>But... how the fuck does that work now? Do bombers need escorts? Would they even be able to protect the bombers? Facing SAMs and AA launched missiles what the fuck is the point of an airsuperiority fighter when they have nothing to fight?
It's a Multi-role. As in, the F-35 does everything.
>At that point, what about anti-missile drones used as decoys?
Get IADS to reveal itself and get Wild Weaseled, obviously.
>Why even use bombers then? If it's too risky to send a $1.2 billion dollar B-2 bomber to drop it's JDAMs why not just use a tomahawk?
Tomahawks cost $1.59m. An SDB-I $40,000. US JDAM's in the ~$25,000 range.
>>30534878
>anything works as a bomb truck
literally my point
>longer range than f-18
Doesn't matter. Still hundreds of miles short of an anti-ship missile. You really want to put a fucking carrier at risk to bomb a few targets?
>mutli-role
Again, you missed the point entirely. How are you going to get your multi-role close enough?
>I don't see your point
What the fuck? You don't see the point that the biggest threat a bomber faces isn't a fighter, but a missile traveling mach10+?
>conflating
You're not thinking at all.
>>30534928
The next gen tomahawks are going to be considerably cheaper
You realize an anti-ship cruise missile travels mach10 at 900miles right? An f-35 only has a range of about 650~ miles.
>>30534962
So what? You don't intercept them with fighters anyways, you use AEGIS to jam and misguide them (and there's no fucking way they have effective beyond horizon targeting that AEGIS won't detect).
Your anti-ship nonsense is a red herring.
>The next gen tomahawks are going to be considerably cheaper
And still not come anywhere near the price of dropping JDAMs and SDBs. Maybe down to a million per. An F-35 in full Stealth can service 8 targets for a fifth of what it costs to service one with a Tomahawk. And is far more likely to both get the target right and have a guaranteed first-shot hit.
>>30535011
>Your anti-ship nonsense is a red herring.
fuckkkkkkkk offffff
>gee guys, I bet the enemy totally isn't building anti-ship missiles despite carriers being the US main way of projecting it's force
>>30535011
you're betting your entire strategy on the hopes that anti-ship missiles won't work... when they already do, and will only get better.
>>30534935
>anti-ship missile
Which ones did you have in mind
>How are you going to get your multi-role close enough?
VLO features, ECM, and standoff munitions.
>>30535090
>Which ones did you have in mind
all of them. If the US has it, so do the chinese and russians.
>>30535117
Which anti-ship missiles did you have in mind?
Or, better yet, what combination of platform (shipborne, airborne, etc), sensors and datalinks, and missiles did you have in mind?
![stock-photo-two-beautiful-girls-laughing-and-pointing-at-camera-53857132[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HYptzKE.jpg "stock-photo-two-beautiful-girls-laughing-and-pointing-at-camera-53857132[1].jpg")
>>30535037
>>30535069
>Questionable propaganda on missiles is a guarantee they work!
>>30535117
>all of them. If the US has it, so do the chinese and russians.
>>30535117
>>30534935
I don't get it. Do you literally think the US can wage war just from satellite data and throwing long range missiles? Because this seems to be what you are saying.
>>30535331
I think he thinks anti-ship missiles are magical and actually act as area denial for carriers.
>>30526705
But the yf-23 failed also. There's one in Torrance, ca
>>30529713
Mig-29? There's one for sale in ohio
>>30534384
Yeah, its a mig 29
>>30531551
Yes, last time around they bought worn out subs from UK, this time around they will buy worn out subs from australia
>>30529087
Ace Combat 7 superplane when?
