Forget the F-35 - should Canada re-develop the Avro Arrow

[Barrister]

The CF-18s are 30 years old.  They are one of the most effective ways we have of participating in international military campaigns - it was our planes who participated in Desert storm, who helped bomb Kosovo, who most recently participated in the Libyan no fly zone.

WE definitely need no planes.  Whether it's just newer CF-18s, F-35s, some French plane, or the fucking Avro Arrow Redux, we need new planes.

Sounds like an order's up for some CF-18 SuperHornets!

It's a perfectly valid option.  Sure costs a hell of a lot less than F-35 will.

[grumbler]

It's a perfectly valid option.  Sure costs a hell of a lot less than F-35 will. 

It's an interesting question, when you are talking small force sizes:  how much extra is it worth to get high survivability?

For most combat missions during its lifetime, a CF-18 will be as good as an F-35.  For some, though, it will be suicidal with a CF-18, while for another portion it will just be dangerous.

Does Canada want to spend that much extra to get a plane that can go on 10-20% more combat missions?  Especially when those might well amount to a few dozen sorties in the next 30 years?

[Barrister]

It's a perfectly valid option.  Sure costs a hell of a lot less than F-35 will. 

It's an interesting question, when you are talking small force sizes:  how much extra is it worth to get high survivability?

For most combat missions during its lifetime, a CF-18 will be as good as an F-35.  For some, though, it will be suicidal with a CF-18, while for another portion it will just be dangerous.

Does Canada want to spend that much extra to get a plane that can go on 10-20% more combat missions?  Especially when those might well amount to a few dozen sorties in the next 30 years?

What's the scenario where Canada faces an adversary that would be suicidal to go up against in modern Super Hornets (since technically the designation CF-18 refers to the F-18A and F-18B models we purchased), yet merely dangerous for an F-35?

[Neil]

God damn it, fucking Pro-military conservative government.

Buy ships, ffs, Ships!

Didn't they put in an order earlier this year?

[Barrister]

BY the way I'm not actually advocating we pull out of the F-35s, not yet at least.  There's too much I don't know.  But since the government has said they will review their aircraft purchase, and the Super Hornet was mentioned as an alternative, it's worthwhile to discuss the option.

[Berkut]

It's a perfectly valid option.  Sure costs a hell of a lot less than F-35 will. 

It's an interesting question, when you are talking small force sizes:  how much extra is it worth to get high survivability?

For most combat missions during its lifetime, a CF-18 will be as good as an F-35.  For some, though, it will be suicidal with a CF-18, while for another portion it will just be dangerous.

Does Canada want to spend that much extra to get a plane that can go on 10-20% more combat missions?  Especially when those might well amount to a few dozen sorties in the next 30 years?

What's the scenario where Canada faces an adversary that would be suicidal to go up against in modern Super Hornets (since technically the designation CF-18 refers to the F-18A and F-18B models we purchased), yet merely dangerous for an F-35?

Any attempt to penetrate a modern or semi-modern integrated air defense system.

I don't know if "suicidal" is the right word.

[grumbler]

What's the scenario where Canada faces an adversary that would be suicidal to go up against in modern Super Hornets (since technically the designation CF-18 refers to the F-18A and F-18B models we purchased), yet merely dangerous for an F-35?

Going up against a modern air defense system in strike mode.  A Superhornet isn't stealth in strike mode, since it carries its ordnance externally.

[Barrister]

It's a perfectly valid option.  Sure costs a hell of a lot less than F-35 will. 

It's an interesting question, when you are talking small force sizes:  how much extra is it worth to get high survivability?

For most combat missions during its lifetime, a CF-18 will be as good as an F-35.  For some, though, it will be suicidal with a CF-18, while for another portion it will just be dangerous.

Does Canada want to spend that much extra to get a plane that can go on 10-20% more combat missions?  Especially when those might well amount to a few dozen sorties in the next 30 years?

What's the scenario where Canada faces an adversary that would be suicidal to go up against in modern Super Hornets (since technically the designation CF-18 refers to the F-18A and F-18B models we purchased), yet merely dangerous for an F-35?

Any attempt to penetrate a modern or semi-modern integrated air defense system.

I don't know if "suicidal" is the right word.

But that's kind of my point.  What is the scenario that has Canada face an adversary with a modern integrated air defense system?  Short of re-fighting 1812, or an extremely unlikely resumption of the Cold War, I can't really see it.  Maybe if we got into some kind of shooting war with China, but even then I doubt their capabilities.

[grumbler]

But that's kind of my point.  What is the scenario that has Canada face an adversary with a modern integrated air defense system?  Short of re-fighting 1812, or an extremely unlikely resumption of the Cold War, I can't really see it.  Maybe if we got into some kind of shooting war with China, but even then I doubt their capabilities.

I am not sure that your inability to imagine a situation in the next 30 years when a Canadian air force unit would face a modern (of that time) air defense is an argument.

[mongers]

No doubt someone will be along in a while to suggest the TSR-2 would be a better alternative to the UK aquiring the F35, be it the A,B or C model.   

[Monoriu]

Not having any modern planes is an excellent excuse for not participating in foreign adventures. 

Yeah we really want to join, if only we have some planes 

[jimmy olsen]

Ships are more important than planes.

[MadBurgerMaker]

I don't get what the point would be.  With "modern" engines and shit, this thing wouldn't be all that cheap when compared to things like the F-16 or CF-18, would it?  This has probably already been brought up.

Have they never considered the F-16?  What kind of tankers does Canada have?  Do they have drogues only, or do they have boom setups too (I'm assuming the CF-18 uses the drogues like the F-18)?

[jimmy olsen]

It's the modern electronics that are gonna jack the price up through the roof I think.

[CountDeMoney]

Ships are more important than planes.

We have ships.  Nobody else needs ships.  What they need are planes.  Planes bomb stuff, planes enforce no-fly zones, planes transport troops, planes participate in coalition warfare.

Fucking man up and buy some SuperHornets, Canada.   It's cheaper, and there's no issue of armaments or spare parts on multinational missions.   

Avro Arrow.   Nigga, please.  Wanna build something important?  Intercontinental air transports and aircraft refueling platforms.  There's a market for that.