F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[jmt18325]

I'd bet a beer on "Faster than our procurement process can get a contract awarded."

And if that's the case, I'd bet on this government, who is supposed to place a lot of weight on evidence, picking it.  If we don't pick it, I want the Rafale.  Something about the jet is just so alluring.

 

[PuckChaser]

And if that's the case, I'd bet on this government, who is supposed to place a lot of weight on evidence, picking it.

You mean you'd be on this government to break its promise on not buying it, being that the promise they made was based on a lot of hard evidence? Give me a break.  :facepalm:

 

[jmt18325]

You mean you'd be on this government to break its promise on not buying it, being that the promise they made was based on a lot of hard evidence? Give me a break.  :facepalm:

The promise they made was pure politics.  We've seen them drop pure political promises already.  I'm somewhat confident that they could do that here without much of a problem.

 

[SupersonicMax]

And if that's the case, I'd bet on this government, who is supposed to place a lot of weight on evidence, picking it.  If we don't pick it, I want the Rafale.  Something about the jet is just so alluring.

I like that "alluring" is a criteria for you for picking one of the most important strategic assets for Canada...

 

[jmt18325]

I like that "alluring" is a criteria for you for picking one of the most important strategic assets for Canada...

I like how every comment has to be picked apart in some way.  All of the contenders would serve Canada's needs -some better than others.  I feel that the Rafale would be one contender that could do that far into the future, given that France will be operating it for a long time.

 

[SupersonicMax]

If you want to hold to your opinion this much, you bet your comments will be picked apart. 

What, in the Rafale, you think would serve us better than an F-35 or even a Super Hornet?

 

[jmt18325]

What, in the Rafale, you think would serve us better than an F-35 or even a Super Hornet?

I didn't say it was better than the F-35.  When the F-35 is ready, it'll be the most capable aircraft (based on specifications) of any aircraft available to Canada, including the F-15.

The Rafale is likely to be in service with France longer than the Super Hornet will be with the USN (though that date keeps getting pushed out and is looking like it could go to the middle of the century).  The Eurofigher is likely to be replaced earlier.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So purely based on allure and what you think its lifespan will be?  Legit...

 

[PuckChaser]

I feel that the Rafale would be one contender that could do that far into the future, given that France will be operating it for a long time.

$8.8B USD for 36 fighters for India very recently. Less than 100 aircraft are flown outside of France. Great candidate.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a20448/india-buys-french-fighters-rafale/

Still, $244 million per aircraft is a lot of money. Why does Rafale cost so much? Exchange rates almost certainly play a role. And in addition to the plane itself, there's also a need for support and maintenance equipment and munitions. Part of the problem with  Rafale is that aside from Paveway laser-guided bombs, it uses mostly French weapons that are incompatible with the rest of India's stockpile.

India is only the third international customer for Rafale. While the fighter has been on the market for decades, Rafale's first overseas sale happened just recently when Qatar bought 24 planes and Egypt followed shortly thereafter.

 

[jmt18325]

$8.8B USD for 36 fighters for India very recently.

Because different countries calculate different variables...differently, that's a meaningless numbers unless we know all of the context.

 

[jmt18325]

So purely based on allure and what you think its lifespan will be?  Legit...

One of the complaints against the Super Hornet is the idea that Canada, having procured it, would possibly be operating an orphaned fleet after the 2030s (though that's looking far less likely).  The Rafale will be operated by France until the 2050s, so that's not a problem there.  It's also a very capable aircraft.  Of course, the major downside of the Rafale is that we'd need new weapons, increasing the cost.  That wouldn't be a problem with either the F-35 or Super Hornet (or Gripen).

 

[Loachman]

this government, who is supposed to place a lot of weight on evidence

The Liberal definition of "evidence" has never been congruent with mine.

Liberal "evidence" is whatever they say it is.

This government will do what it wants, regardless of non-quotation-marked evidence.

One of the complaints against the Super Hornet is the idea that Canada, having procured it, would possibly be operating an orphaned fleet after the 2030s (though that's looking far less likely).

Rafale will also be an orphaned fleet, given its low numbers. All of the same problems will apply. There is simply no valid reason to buy it, and plenty not to.

There is less and less reason to buy anything but F35 every day.

 

[jmt18325]

At the moment, the Super Hornet is still the safest bet.  In another ~2 years, that may no longer be the case.

As to the Rafale being an Orphaned fleet - that's simply not the case.  The people who developed it will continue to develop and support it for some time.  That's definitely doesn't fit the definition. 

I simply like the aircraft.  I wasn't aware that was a crime. 

 

[dimsum]

I simply like the aircraft.  I wasn't aware that was a crime.

Nobody said it was.  However, in this forum, one is expected to back up their choices with evidence to support why XYZ is better than ABC, like any informed/intelligent discussion or debate.  No one here is attacking you personally, just picking apart *why* you prefer one over the other. 

This goes for any topic, not just this one. 

 

[PuckChaser]

At the moment, the Super Hornet is still the safest bet.

Safe for everyone but the pilots? Who cares about those guys anyways, we're real good at ramp ceremonies.

 

[jmt18325]

Nobody said it was.  However, in this forum, one is expected to back up their choices with evidence to support why XYZ is better than ABC, like any informed/intelligent discussion or debate.

I've actually said that I think the Super Hornet would be a better choice for Canada's interests, though there are certainly areas where the Rafale is superior.

No one here is attacking you personally, just picking apart *why* you prefer one over the other. 

That certainly hasn't been my experience here of late.  People actually implied that I was being dishonest with my rank information.  Beyond that, preference doesn't require evidence. 

 

[jmt18325]

Safe for everyone but the pilots? Who cares about those guys anyways, we're real good at ramp ceremonies.

Safe in that it is a known quantity and we would be able to secure a definitive, fast timeline.

We now have pretty reliable information, presented here, that the US Navy will be operating the aircraft for decades to come.  It's entirely likely that it will be kept relevant.

The F-35 will be superior, but to imply that the Super Hornet is unsafe is pretty dishonest. 

 

[Loachman]

It will be less effective and less survivable in a combat situation.

That seems remarkably less safe to me.

Your persistence in pushing inferior options is staggering, and baffling.

 

[Sharven444]

Hello. I'm new here.
Found a very interesting video about the F-35 that I though would be interesting to share.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HVY6Fdc2CM

 

[jmt18325]

It will be less effective and less survivable in a combat situation.

To be fair, that's already true of the aircraft we currently fly when compared with some of its contemporaries.

For the likely threats that Canada will face, any of the aircraft choices available would serve us well.  The F-35 would simply do it a little better.  If this was 5 years from now, I doubt there'd be any question about that.