Ottawa va acheter 18 Super Hornet

C'est une bonne nouvelle. Les F22 et F35 sont vraiment pas impressionnants côté efficacité, fiabilité et performance. En gros, ce sont des exercices ratés.

Le Super Hornet n'excelle dans rien mais est un multirole fighter compétant dans son ensemble, en plus ont a déjà les connaissances et le matériel pour s'en occupé.

Dans mes rêves le Canada sélectionnerait les Su30-35 ou les nouveaux MiG-35 mais ça n'arrivera jamais... 3D thrust vectoring for the win!
 
a ce que j ai lu ce soir la US Navy continu de passer des commandes pour le Super Hornet car le F35 aurait maintenant 6 ans minimum de retard dans son programme et eux aussi ont besoin de remplacer des F18 vieillissant
c'est vraiment une bonne chose de prendre cet avion pour regarnir nos tablettes etant encore en production constante ils peuvent les livrer probablement tres rapidement
 
m_falafel said:
Y'a beaucoup de gens ici qui n'ont pas l'air de comprendre que le Super hornet est juste une évolution du Hornet que nous avons... On sauve littéralement des centaines de millions en formations, en outillage, en pièces, etc.

Notre flotte est tellement vieillissante qu'on avait plus le choix de procéder ainsi si on veut se donner le temps de faire une véritable compétition entre les jet next gen et ainsi s'assurer d'acheter le meilleur au meilleur prix.

J'étais assez d'accord avec les politiques des Conservateur en majorité, mais d'avoir décidé d'aller de l'avant avec le f-35 sans aller voir ailleurs et comparer c'était vraiment un move de marde de Néocon qui voulait juste faire plaisir aux américains.

Avec tous les problèmes liés au F-35, j'aime mieux qu'on prenne vraiment le temps de magasiner comme il faut.
Click to expand...

Le problème est exactement là... depuis la 2 guerre mondiale, les génération de jet fighter se sucedait au gré des durée de vie utiles des avions... Quand l'avion arrivais en fin de vie la next gen était prête.
 
Spiter_01 said:
Necessary but I'm not sure how good this is long term. I think we'd have to see the cost of these super hornets, was Boeing desperate to get some orders so they could keep the line open?
Still doesn't solve the issue of the long term replacement for the CF-18 The pessimist in me thinks they'll have an open competition but the cards are stacked for the Super Hornet now since they'll score extra points for compatibility, given we just put in a firm order but the plane is almost 20 years old.
Click to expand...

Super Hornet and Hornet are fairly similar to fly, everything else under the hood are completely different. Current production Super Hornets and our CF-18's have very little in common in terms of parts and maintenance practices. You save on flight training yes but the maintenance package for the SH is much different. By the time the Liberals finish with their 'consultations' and get around to actually buying anything, there won't be many options on the table. Super Hornet's production line is winding down now, and so will Eurofighter and Rafale. Remember it takes about 2 years to get long term lead items ordered and secured for something like a fighter jet, so if we follow the typical government timeline, that means the order will come in 2018 with potential first deliveries in 2020? Add in an additional 1.5- 2 years to get full operational capability as well.

The Liberals know the F-35 is the best option but they will be 100% breaking an election promise by purchasing it they shot themselves in the foot by trying to make the Conservatives bad. By the time we are ready to get ours the FRP will be the same price as the SH anyways.. The problems everyone is blowing out of proportion are with the carrier and STOVL versions. The F-35 will be a fine a aircraft once the bugs are worked out. When we bought our CF-18s in the early 80s they were still in the "getting the bugs worked out" stage.
 
m_falafel said:
I wonder why they keep these old turboprop when they got such a HUGE number of ballistic missiles. especially with their new ones that travel at like mach 6 with 14 warheads each. Every one of them is able to completely destroy an area the size of france/texas.
Click to expand...

Same reason why the B-52 and B-2 still exist.

You have strategic and tactical targets. Strategic are of national importance, and for the most part don't move. Those are the targets for ICBMs. Tactical are more theater based, and can be moved from location to location, which ICBMs are largely ineffective against. You would use a tactical nuclear weapon to take out Russian armor coming across the Fuda Gap, not an ICBM. In the B-2s case you can deliver that payload over Russian hordes of armor, protected by mobile AA systems. Or have bombers loitering around at their fail safe points.

Tu-95 and B-52 are still very mission capable despite being "old" The Russians are still very petrified of the B-2
 
mustangup said:
Le problème est exactement là... depuis la 2 guerre mondiale, les génération de jet fighter se sucedait au gré des durée de vie utiles des avions... Quand l'avion arrivais en fin de vie la next gen était prête.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOLOLOLOL yea because they were ALWAYS 100% perfect.
 
Supposement que finalement ils vont les acheter used. Un pays de l'Europe de l'est a un bon deal pour nous. Justin est parti checker ca. Sa femme voulait y aller fak y vont faire leur inspection. Sont partis avec la Carte de credit du Canada.
 
Gregster said:
Super Hornet and Hornet are fairly similar to fly, everything else under the hood are completely different. Current production Super Hornets and our CF-18's have very little in common in terms of parts and maintenance practices. You save on flight training yes but the maintenance package for the SH is much different.
Click to expand...

Listen to Greg. That's 95% of what my civilian instructor said. And he worked with the CF188 out of Cold Lake for 15+ years.
It's not such a "no brainer" solution. If we keep on getting hand me downs, we will always be behind the group of friends that we play with. Soon, we might becomeweak for lagging far behind.
 
Camry90 said:
Listen to Greg.
Click to expand...

Only aviation jerk-offs, in Canada, crave for the F-35. Every article I read, from military expert point to it's numerous short comings. Even coming from US expert on a US perspective.

The only thing the F-35 is better at compared to the latest Super Hornet is short and medium range striking inside enemy territory. But guess what, drones do that much much better now, at what? 1/10th the cost? All the rest, the latest Super Hornets can do just as well and more, at what 1/2 the cost?

Canada is not alone in that sinking boat. the same country that were on board with the F-35 are now purchasing competing planes.
 
Ronin said:
Only aviation jerk-offs, in Canada, crave for the F-35. Every article I read, from military expert point to it's numerous short comings. Even coming from US expert on a US perspective.

The only thing the F-35 is better at compared to the latest Super Hornet is short and medium range striking inside enemy territory. But guess what, drones do that much much better now, at what? 1/10th the cost? All the rest, the latest Super Hornets can do just as well and more, at what 1/2 the cost?

Canada is not alone in that sinking boat. the same country that were on board with the F-35 are now purchasing competing planes.
Click to expand...

You can drop bombs on durka durka with Cessna Grand Caravans or Super Tucanos... Where the F-35 comes into play is with it's electronics suite, thats what most people seem to miss. The first F-15s and F-16s were far from great but they developed.
 
Les F18 sont pas vraiment utilisé pour envahir un autre pays.

Au Canada ils font beaucoup de reconnaissance et surveille les endroits éloignés comme l'arctique. Peu de gens en parlent mais le Canada doit garder le fort et s'assurer que personne ne viennent fuckailler dans le nord du pays.
 
The SH will not be the cheapest to operate. We will require these jets to serve for 40 years from delivery, as the current fleet of classic Hornets will have done so, then the cost to operate significantly changes. They will also likely become the sole operator of the SH in the operating timeframe. Being the sole operator of a fighter jet is the most expensive way to operate it as you become solely responsible to managing the hardware and software. The RCAF SH would end up very much like the RAAF operating the F-111, sustainable for a few years before costs rose dramatically to an unsustainable level. Having a hundred+ jets in the boneyard didn't make a different to the F-111 and the SH would be no different. Forecasting ahead, if they purchase 75 SH in the early to mid 20s, they will require at minimum two significant upgrades to their systems, drastically increasing their overall life cycle costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top