canadian Airforce Question

[Kenazo]

Why the heck do we even bother flying jets. We only have 60 some operation F-18's. Would it not make more sense to put more cheaper planes in the air, with better missiles and electronics? Canada is in no position to be mounting an attack on anyone anyway, go back to wwII P-51's, strap some sidewinders on them, with the most advanced radar available, but put 2000 of them across Canada would be the way to go, I'd think.

 

[tm37]

You should aviod talking about thing you know nothing about.

 

[DaveSimmons]

July isn't far off now, why not just wait until after we've annexed you to take care of the air power issue?

Oh, and I've heard they'll be exchanging real dollars for those maple things, so pay raises for everybody!

 

[Bootprint]

Because it'll cost money. We can pull parts off some of the CF-18s in storage. Why would you spend the extra money for newer stuff?

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: tm37
You should aviod talking about thing you know nothing about.

I can talk all I want, since I have no say anyway.

heck, maybe Dief was right, let's just do away w/ the airforce and use nuclear tipped anti-aircraft missiles. You americans are fools with your big airforce.

 

[Rudee]

Are you willing to pay extra taxes in order to do this? If not, shut your yapper!

 

[Bootprint]

We need to replace the helicopters before we get to the CF-18s, those SeaKings are get dangerous.

 

[maddogchen]

Why do you call it CF-18s? Does the C stand for Canadian, as in its built in Canada? I just find that odd, since the Dutch don't call their F-16s, DF-16s

 

[StageLeft]

Because it's better to spend the money feeding the natives' drinking problems than upgrading the military. Canada's military is in a pathetic, embarassing state of disrepair equipment-wise.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Why do you call it CF-18s? Does the C stand for Canadian, as in its built in Canada? I just find that odd, since the Dutch don't call their F-16s, DF-16s

Probably some canadian modifications to it, like cold-weather starting

 

[Bootprint]

Officially it's the CF-188. One difference is the spotlight they've installed in the nose on the left side for night identification of aircraft.

Too much info

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Bootprint
Officially it's the CF-188. One difference is the spotlight they've installed in the nose on the left side for night identification of aircraft.

Too much info

Oh i see, its been modified to fit Canadian requirements. Thanks for the info.

 

[bigalt]

since when did canada move away from flying squirrels as the delivery system of choice?

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: Kenazo
Why the heck do we even bother flying jets. We only have 60 some operation F-18's. Would it not make more sense to put more cheaper planes in the air, with better missiles and electronics? Canada is in no position to be mounting an attack on anyone anyway, go back to wwII P-51's, strap some sidewinders on them, with the most advanced radar available, but put 2000 of them across Canada would be the way to go, I'd think.

It doesn't matter how many p51s you have. Jets could come in with a huge altitude advantage (to increase missle range), fire their missles, and then just run away. The P51's would have no chance to evade the missles. Plus, equiping p51s with AA missles and radar would be very expensive. It would be more cost effective to just buy more jets.

The role of our military is mainly to fight alongside other militaries, not defend our own country. It's very unlikely we'll actually get attacked and if we were, we wouldn't be alone. If the US attacked us, even 2000 p51s couldn't save us

I do wonder though if to a certain extent more cheaper planes are better than fewer expensive planes. Is a $120million+ F22 really more useful that several cheaper jets?

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: Kenazo
Why the heck do we even bother flying jets. We only have 60 some operation F-18's. Would it not make more sense to put more cheaper planes in the air, with better missiles and electronics? Canada is in no position to be mounting an attack on anyone anyway, go back to wwII P-51's, strap some sidewinders on them, with the most advanced radar available, but put 2000 of them across Canada would be the way to go, I'd think.

It doesn't matter how many p51s you have. Jets could come in with a huge altitude advantage (to increase missle range), fire their missles, and then just run away. The P51's would have no chance to evade the missles. Plus, equiping p51s with AA missles and radar would be very expensive. It would be more cost effective to just buy more jets.

The role of our military is mainly to fight alongside other militaries, not defend our own country. It's very unlikely we'll actually get attacked and if we were, we wouldn't be alone. If the US attacked us, even 2000 p51s couldn't save us

I do wonder though if to a certain extent more cheaper planes are better than fewer expensive planes. Is a $120million+ F22 really more useful that several cheaper jets?

I believe governments are willing to spend more on less planes is because it is economic. One newer plane can serve the role of multiple older planes. In the long run, it will cost the same, or less than it currently does. Plus, fewer planes means fewer pilots to put in harms way.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

I do wonder though if to a certain extent more cheaper planes are better than fewer expensive planes. Is a $120million+ F22 really more useful that several cheaper jets?

Well that depends on the survivability of the jets. If the F-22's stealth technology really works, then it could very well survive longer than cheaper planes with no stealth. Which would then save money and pilots.

 

[Martin]

No p51s, but looking into cheaper alternatives may be good. Perhaps its better to buy 2 Rafales than 1 F22.

But practically speaking, it can't happen because US would be too upset.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
No p51s, but looking into cheaper alternatives may be good. Perhaps its better to buy 2 Rafales than 1 F22.

But practically speaking, it can't happen because US would be too upset.

There is no way Canada will ever buy the Rafales, maybe the Eurofighter or the Joint Strike Fighter. Since the Canadien air force prefer fighter with two engines, the Eurofighter would be a good choice. The CF-18 will have to be retired someday. Personally, I think the F-16 would be a nice fit, it's not the most high-tech, but it's relatively cheap and extremely deadly in air to air, and can carry all kind of weapons.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Pocatello

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
No p51s, but looking into cheaper alternatives may be good. Perhaps its better to buy 2 Rafales than 1 F22.

But practically speaking, it can't happen because US would be too upset.

There is no way Canada will ever buy the Rafales, maybe the Eurofighter or the Joint Strike Fighter. Since the Canadien air force prefer fighter with two engines, the Eurofighter would be a good choice. The CF-18 will have to be retired someday. Personally, I think the F-16 would be a nice fit, it's not the most high-tech, but it's relatively cheap and extremely deadly in air to air, and can carry all kind of weapons.

How come? The two engines, or some politics I don't konw about?

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Pocatello

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
No p51s, but looking into cheaper alternatives may be good. Perhaps its better to buy 2 Rafales than 1 F22.

But practically speaking, it can't happen because US would be too upset.

There is no way Canada will ever buy the Rafales, maybe the Eurofighter or the Joint Strike Fighter. Since the Canadien air force prefer fighter with two engines, the Eurofighter would be a good choice. The CF-18 will have to be retired someday. Personally, I think the F-16 would be a nice fit, it's not the most high-tech, but it's relatively cheap and extremely deadly in air to air, and can carry all kind of weapons.

How come? The two engines, or some politics I don't konw about?

Something to do with Canadian harsh weather condition, in case one engine fails, you'd still have the other.