Canada to buy used Australian hornets

[HighBypass 2,339]

That version of the F-35 doesn't hover so it will hoon around better due to less weight. HOWEVER, I'm sorry but that display was.... lacklustre... mediocre. I saw nothing in that display which an F-4 Phantom couldn't manage - maybe the slow flybys might have been a little slower than an F-4, but nope, nothing to see there.  Heck I was more impressed by this Starfighter video!

Now, if we're talking Sukhois....  the F-35 had better be able to destroy any adversary at BVR, because if it gets up close, then this beast can point it's nose wherever it needs to... and you may be able to buy his mate too for the cost of one F-35..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfYElZi9QTk

 

[odourboy 1,289]

9 hours ago, Lon Duncombe said:

The proposed purchase from Australia is retaliation in part against Boeing's attempts to smother Canada's Bombardier's C Series jets at birth.  Boeing's hypocritical complaints have persuaded the US government to impose a ludicrous 330% (!) tariff on Bombardier.  This in turn  has understandably soured Canada's previous plans to buy Boeing"s F-18 Super Hornets.

Lon Duncombe

Sadly, whether you buy them from Boeing, or from Australia, we're still buying Boeings which indirectly supports that corporation. If Canada were serious about protecting our industry, they'd fund Bombardier to build our fighters ourselves under license like we used to do.

[Chock 17,769]

The thing with air displays, is that you don't know what the weight of the aeroplane is for a kick off, and they are never carrying any military payload when doing such displays. You will quite often see a military jet wowing crowds with its incredible turn rate at low level, but only because it is using pure power to do so when in full afterburner, and as anyone who knows anything about jet engines will tell you, most combat aircraft would be completely empty of fuel after about ten minutes of afterburner at low altitude, which of course does not matter when doing a display over an airfield as you can pretty much run the thing until damn near empty and know you've got somewhere to land right below you, it's a different story when 200 miles over enemy terrain. 

I remember watching an F-16 and an SU-27 both doing that sort of display at RAF Fairford at the 50th anniversary of the USAF air show years ago, and sure, the F-16 was turning real tight over the airfield, but it needed full 'burner to do it, conversely, the SU-27 was making those same turns in dry power. It was pretty obvious which one would have won in a turning fight, and it wouldn't even have needed to fire its weapon, it could have just waited for the F-16 to run out of fuel.

[HighBypass 2,339]

Indeed - but assuming both are balls to the wall on vapours and none are carrying any weapons - the internal cannon wouldn't even be loaded - then it's pretty much a damning comparison against the latest whizz bang jet. Canada's just biding its time with time-served and proven airframes until the CF105 Arrow II is developed....   

[Boomer 1,619]

Bloody Heck,..not more hand me down garbage for our First Class fighter pilots...the SuperHornet was an excellent option for Canada.  The STUPIDITY of my government continues to astound me.

[lownslo 592]

46 minutes ago, Boomer said:

The STUPIDITY of my government continues to astound me.

It's not just your government, Chris.

Greg

[MrSpeaker 122]

7 hours ago, ubersu said:

So, who do you think Canada is going to war with? Australia has actually spent a fair amount of time, fighting in the Pacific and Asia and takes its treaty obligations seriously. I worked with Aussie troops in Vietnam who actually were there to fight. Canada honors her treaty obligations with non-combat troops only.

DJ

Do some research buds. We had more of a combat presence in Afagnistan and lost more troops the the Aussies did. Not that it's a contest. 

[Jim Young 2,356]

Political comments are not allowed here and will be removed as soon as we see them or as soon as they are reported.  Please keep your comments related to our hobby and let Reddit handle the political hate speech.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

17 hours ago, YukonPete said:

Here in Canada we have a history of providing our men and woman in the armed forces hand me down equipment other countries are in the process of retiring.  The people in suits in Ottawa don't think its important for our service members to have the best. While Canada waste money buying Australia's used F18's , Australia with a smaller population then Canada spends 10 Billion dollars a year more on defense then Canada.  Australia has spent the last 10 years modernizing its Navy, Army and Air force,    

Not sure where you are getting this from. Yes the Submarines got a beating in the press that led to a public perception, but I did used to live across the street from CFB Halifax for years and used to watch those subs from my balcony, also drink with the engineers and sailors that worked on them and they would tell you a very different story. Take the time to talk to those that work on them and not what you read in the press and you will find a group of people having pride in something they feel very fortunate to be able to work on, and they hate that bad press more then anything.

This purchase is a stop gap measure because of a trade dispute, but Canada doesn't have much of a history of buying used aircraft with some exception, in fact Canada has a history of building interceptors and selling them to other nations if you look at the Canadair CF-104 Starfighter, 200 of those built in Montreal for Canada, Denmark, Norway and Turkey. Canada should be doing more of this if big business south of the Canadian Border would allow it. Unfortunate that the C-Series is under threat like the Avro Arrow was.

I would have liked to see Canada buy the rights to build their own fleet and they do have some very good options in the CF-35 program having opportunities to take part in the supply chain of that fighter as well, but yes this is another opportunity with bad press as well. I don't think you will ever find a situation that works for everyone with the sort of press coverage that Canada has. I love Canada, I just prefer talking to Canadians then reading about Canada in the CBC, Canadians tell a different story.

Also I will add I did get to know people that worked on the SeaKing's as well. Best way to describe those guys is like keeping an old muscle car going that you love , Yes you could work on a 2016 Toyota or you could work on a 1968 Camero, which would you prefer? Anyone you talk to that has ever worked on or flew those SeaKings will tell you how much they loved them. Ask the CBC about the Seaking's and it is a sad but different story. I think the Seaking will go down in history as the best Helicopter ever produced as for me they are the 747's of the Helicopter World, and it is awesome to see Marine One still use it from time to time.

[awreaper 14]

I would never judge an aircraft, and/or aircraft and its complete weapons system, by an airshow demo.  I would also never advise getting in a turn fight against an F-16 unless he was fully loaded and then it would be a serious gamble, especially in a SU-27. I think the biggest difference in Canada and Australia is that Canada happens to have the worlds best military just south of them which happens to be very friendly to Canada and Australia does not.  Canada can afford to spend less on its military.  As far as the F-35 goes, this negativity happens with every new weapons system it seems.  I have no doubt the F-35 will be a fine weapons system in time.

[YukonPete 586]

 

3 minutes ago, awreaper said:

I would never judge an aircraft, and/or aircraft and its complete weapons system, by an airshow demo.  I would also never advise getting in a turn fight against an F-16 unless he was fully loaded and then it would be a serious gamble, especially in a SU-27. I think the biggest difference in Canada and Australia is that Canada happens to have the worlds best military just south of them which happens to be very friendly to Canada and Australia does not.  Canada can afford to spend less on its military.  As far as the F-35 goes, this negativity happens with every new weapons system it seems.  I have no doubt the F-35 will be a fine weapons system in time.

No one is judging an aircraft by an airshow! I think you are right that Canada relies and the US a lot more then Australia does.

[Chock 17,769]

52 minutes ago, YukonPete said:

No one is judging an aircraft by an airshow!

Well that's kind of what LM were trying to achieve at Paris with the F-35 when they were talking about its flight demo at LeBourget. Just have a read of some of the nonsense in this link to an Aviation Week article about its LeBourget routine:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-demo-pilot-paris-performance-will-crush-years-misinformation

The bit about doing an afterburner take off and going into a vertical climb supposedly being a move 'unique to the F-22 and the F-35' is laughable. I've seen all kinds of jet fighters do that at airshows numerous times, I even saw a Sepecat Jaguar do it once, and that's not even a fighter lol. I'm sure pretty much everyone else who has ever been to a half decent airshow in the past thirty years has seen military jets pulling that one off, certainly it is a MiG 29 favourite which most people will have witnessed Fulcrums doing when they're not busy colliding with one another during their displays lol. It's a party trick, and a cool one to watch of course, but it doesn't mean diddly squat in terms of what would happen in combat

Sure the F-35 has a lot more sophisticated linked avionics from other aircraft than previous combat aircraft, which absolutely will aid in its situational awareness, and that is cool for sure, however... The notion they were first claiming for the F-35 - when it was posited by many critics that it wouldn't be as good a dogfighter as previous generation fighters - whereby it supposedly would never need to dogfight because it would take everything out at long range thanks to its super-duper missiles (yeah right, where've we heard that one before eh?), is one they are now trying to backpedal on, claiming it is awesome in a dogfight when it supposedly won't need to do that, which is preposterous. The idea that the F-35 can be a substitute for everything from the A-10 Thunderbolt to the F-15 Eagle is just as laughable for the F-35 as it is for every other MRCA, multi-role aircraft are by their very definition a compromise to save money, and a compromise is absolutely not what any Navy or Air Force would want if it could procure something better suited to a dedicated role.

I suspect Canada will be a lot better off with some refurbished Super Hornets than they would with the F-35, because the F/A-18, whilst being pretty versatile, isn't an attempt to be fifteen different combat aircraft all rolled into one, so it can play to its strengths from a tactical standpoint instead of trying to be a jack of all trades and ultimately, master of none of them.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

There was a story I once read about a Canadian ground soldier in WWII, in a 1975 January Reader's Digest.  He was called the "Pied Piper", and he was a very brave soul indeed, he could not get into the service any other way and he marched is way up to the stamina required for a soldier and his camarades.  I think you can even buy a used copy of this book online.  The Canadian Air Force is our front line defense for Nato and it's important to be kept in it's prime.  I live near Luke where the pilots are now trained on the F-35, don't know if Canadian pilots are there yet or not.

John

[YukonPete 586]

12 minutes ago, Cactus521 said:

There was a story I once read about a Canadian ground soldier in WWII, in a 1975 January Reader's Digest.  He was called the "Pied Piper", and he was a very brave soul indeed, he could not get into the service any other way and he marched is way up to the stamina required for a soldier and his camarades.  I think you can even buy a used copy of this book online.  The Canadian Air Force is our front line defense for Nato and it's important to be kept in it's prime.  I live near Luke where the pilots are now trained on the F-35, don't know if Canadian pilots are there yet or not.

John

John do you go to the Luke AFB airshow in March? I am thinking of flying down from the Yukon and going. I need to get out of dodge for a week during winter and an airshow is perfect.

[spearmint_flyer 579]

2 hours ago, Jim Young said:

Political comments are not allowed here and will be removed as soon as we see them or as soon as they are reported.  Please keep your comments related to our hobby and let Reddit handle the political hate speech.

Ok. It's stupid that Boeing is playing that card after they sold the 787 to ANA below cost to get the sales started. Bombardier has every right to sell them at what ever price they want. Their profit and loss are their business not Boeings.