Michael Byers & Stewart Webb: Buyer beware the F-35
Michael Byers & Stewart Webb: Buyer beware the F-35
Full story: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ware-the-f-35/ Quote:
|
I think we have to also admit that the US is past it's prime when it comes to technology.
|
Quote:
|
I think it's safe to say that Lockheed Martin's work has not been impressive.
|
Do better alternatives exist? Practically every non-Communist government has expressed interest in the F-35 at some point.
The reality is the only alternative is to do nothing. |
^certainly might save a buck or three. For that kind of money, you expect more. Just sayin'
|
Quote:
Buy 100 Super Hornets and add more Cyclones (Navy Helicopter), Chinooks (transport Helicopters) and C17 (air Transport) |
Quote:
|
I'll ask the same question here I've asked elsewhere, why can't we buy Russian equipment?
Designed to meet Russian needs, which are very similar to ours, and they've either replicated similar american technology, or outright stole it for their own aircraft. In this case, the Pak Fa, which is purported to have a longer range, is faster than (both cruise and top speed), and more manueverable than either the F-22 or F-35. Not to mention very durable and robust landing gear, and a take off run of 1500 feet and a landing run of 1300 feet with inferior engines (New ones are in development which will give the aircraft up to 75 000 pounds of thrust). These are better numbers than a Herc, famed for it's STOL abilities. Even if it isn't as stealthy as an F-35, it is purported to be an overall superior aircraft, at 1/2-1/3 the price of the F-35 and F-22. And unlike the American's with the F-22 and some technology built into the F-35, the Russians and Indians are willing to export. Not saying this is what we should be looking at, I'm just curious about any possible hang ups. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Put me down as a fan of the PAK-FA. Swallow some pride and buy the planes bare boned and outfit them with NATO electoronics, best of both worlds and still cheaper. Might even be able neogiate some resolutions to parts of the Arctic dispute.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
a SAAB/Bombardier tandem would be a great economic driver.....bring the technology to canada as a true partnership, instead of just buying it off the shelf from the americans....it would also send a message to the world that we not a military extension of the US, aligning ourselves with more neutral armed forces. the swedes have similar military needs...remote bases, harsh climates, smaller budgets...it could be a perfect match to get a plane tailored to our needs with the economic spin off of it being a 'canadian' design....it could be the catalyst for an entire industry. always loved the viggen..... |
Quote:
In terms of contract-building fighter jets in Canada, only Dassault has so far been open in claiming they would have the Rafales (should we buy them) built almost entirely in Canada. It's also rumoured that either Boeing, BAE Systems, or Saab Aerospace have made a similar offer in private, but it is not confirmed by which of those three. If it were up to me, I would have an open competition. This sees different groups attempt to make the best possible deal for them and for Canadian industry. Regardless of whichever plane is chosen (except the increasingly troubled F-35), I would encourage industry contracts on the side in the "spirit of friendship" so to speak, and would attempt to have Bombardier and others in Canada get involved with Saab and the next-generation of Gripen. To keep this growth going, I would put a tender out to Canadian companies only for aircraft replacement, much the same as what we saw recently with shipping contracts. Viking Air would get the contract to build newer and better Buffalo SAR aircraft. Even the proposed C-27J Spartan does not come close to what the Buffalo is still capable of. Bombardier Aerospace would get a contract for Aurora replacements, along with new transport and surveillance aircraft in the form of modified C-Series jets, and Challenger Jets. For a cheap jet trainer/low-intensity fighter/patrol jet, initiate production of the Venga TG-10. This becomes a huge boon to the Canadian aviation industry, grows said industry and boosts the economy, and replaces aircraft in need of replacement. |
Quote:
The MiG-35 (which was one of the contenders for the indian MMRCA competition) uses the western standard MIL-STD-1553 bus, which allows the plane to be fitted with either russian, american, french, indian or israeli avionics and weapon systems. IMHO, the Su-35S would be a much better option for Canada. It has a range of 3 600 km, can carry up to twelve BVR air to air missiles, has one of the most powerful radar ever fitted on a fighter aircraft, is able of supercruising and has thrust vector control. Oh, and it's less than half the price of the F-35. |
The Gripen would be an interesting choice as well, even if it is a single-engine. It's range is not much less than that of a CF-18 and it's incredibly affordable.
|
Quote:
Also, the Gripen (just as the F-35) cannot supercruise (i.e. go supersonic without using afterburners), which results in longer interception time, higher fuel consumption and shorter range. The small Gripen is good for small contries, but becomes irrelevant when you have a huge airspace to defend. Heck, even the good old and huge MiG-31 (which is still available for production) would be a better option than the Gripen or the F-35. |
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercr...th_supercruise |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.