people basically complain about this jet because its single engined and for the canadian north where u need to cover huge distance it could be dangerous if the engine breaks down. make a twin engines CF version or get the F22. problem solved and hippies can go back to bed.
The F-22 is very "finicky" due to expensive and frequent maintenance(1-2 months..) Besides we can't debate this subject since there is no export allowed.
d'un autre coté il faut protéger la souveraineté du canada et les f-35 sont parfait pour couvrir de grand territoire
Je LOL
Notre façon de protéger notre souveraineté c'est d'être ami avec les USA ( en leur achetant des avions entre autre). C'est pas avec nos quelques avions qu'on peut se protéger nous même.
Parce que soyons réaliste, si la Russie ou les USA décident qu'ils veulent le Canada ils vont l'avoir en esti. On est 30 millions d'habitants et on a probablement 1% de leur armée.
Donc quant à moi l'achat des F35 c'est juste une fleur qu'on envoie aux voisins du sud pour maintenir des bonnes relations et qu'ils nous aident à protéger notre tas de glace des méchants russes.
Des chiffres pour comparer notre aviation et celle de qui on défend notre "souveraineté". C'est pas mal comme si les canadiens jouaient à 1 vs 5 sans avoir de goaler pendant une saison, ça serait dure de gagner la coupe stanley pas mal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Air_Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_Soviet_Union_and_the_CIS
Ca fait pas très Top Gun un avion qui atteri de même!
il décolle pas sur place à cause du poids de l'Essence??
J'aimerais que les gouvernements dépensent moins en technologies de guerre et plus dans l'exploration de l'espace....
The standard f-35 meets our needs fine. The super hornet is a great aircraft but it's basic design is over 30 years old.
I heard f-35 requires absurd preventive maintenance, super hornets you can beat to shit and barely maintain and they'll still work. Is that true?
sorry but I'm not going to believe an article that was written by a political science teacher. The cf-18 gets the 3300 km range because of drop tanks and a clean airframe. No missles.The f35 has provisions for drop tanks which will make its range greater then the cf18 however a drop tank has the radar Siganture of a house. Guess what? There is a ton of defense construction taking place in the artic now. I have a feeling we will have an airbase established there soon enough. F-22s have a mission ready status of 97%. Comparing top speeds is useless since top speeds are very rarely reached due to extreme airframe stress. If they do get close max Mach then it's for a short period of time. What makes fighters so lethal is aerial tanker support.Too bad the F-35 won't have the required range or operability to even adequatly protect our sovereignty in the North...
It's alright, that failure will just pave the way to having military drone flying over our head.
That article sums it up pretty good
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/973799--f-35-a-poor-fit-for-canada
sorry but I'm not going to believe an article that was written by a political science teacher. The cf-18 gets the 3300 km range because of drop tanks and a clean airframe. No missles.The f35 has provisions for drop tanks which will make its range greater then the cf18 however a drop tank has the radar Siganture of a house. Guess what? There is a ton of defense construction taking place in the artic now. I have a feeling we will have an airbase established there soon enough. F-22s have a mission ready status of 97%. Comparing top speeds is useless since top speeds are very rarely reached due to extreme airframe stress. If they do get close max Mach then it's for a short period of time. What makes fighters so lethal is aerial tanker support.
The F-15 design is almost 40 years old and by the time we would get them it would be closer to 50. The same thing goes for f18s. It would be like showing up to a dog fight with a Spitfire today.
Meanwhile, Canada’s early production model F-35 Joint Strike Fighters won’t have the satellite communications gear necessary to communicate with the outside world while flying over remote regions like the Arctic, according to the Winnepeg Free Press.
This is a headache particularly for Canada and the U.S., who are increasingly concerned with defending resource rich Arctic territory from Russia as the Polar Ice caps melt. Now, fighters have patrolled over the Arctic for decades without Satcoms still, this is the 21st Century and good communications and situational awareness are crucial elements in winning a fight, now more than ever.
Canada isn’t slated to receive F-35’s equipped with Satcoms until 2019 and Ottawa is apparently looking at installing communications pods used by Canadian CF-18 Hornets on the F-35s as a stopgap measure for Arctic ops. This move would obviously trade stealth for communications.