I am in favour of a mixed fleet as it allows us to maintain an airforce of 100 planes rather than 60-ish. I believe this is Australia's strategy as well.
No, the Super Hornets are a stop gap for the F-35s to replace their even older F-111
Which would seem to be 100% false given that the plane isn't actually available, and won't won't be for years. If they ever actually put the things in production, perhaps it will be able to do this, sometime in the the 2020s ... but I don't see how you can claim it can presently do this.
1st thing, unavailable has nothing to do with its mission profile, and secondly, the F-35 IS in production, just not at full rate as not all of the bugs have been ironed out.
How can I claim it can fill the Super Hornet's mission profile?
You mean besides the publicly available specifications? How about the Super Hornet is currently being used to temporarily fill the void the F-35's delays left? Or how about the program's requirements compared to that of the Super Hornets?
By that weird logic, Canada's air force is therefore currently unable to defend our air space because we don't have the F-35 and won't for years to come.
The 5th generation fighters of rival nations have yet to go beyond the initial prototype stage. We are okay for until they go into production estimated at around 2020.
Also, as discussed earlier, the U.S.A. would never take kindly to Canada failing to meet it's NORAD obligations, which it can and does do with the Hornet and would be able to do with the Super Hornet.
The Hornet is adequate in dealing with other 4th generation threats, namely the flankers and migs, similar to the Super Hornets or the Eurocanards.
Upgrading to them will be an utter waste of money due to the innate obsolescence of their design being in the same generation as the Hornets.
If we assume for a moment that the Harper government is intentionally under-estimating the cost of the F-35 program for political reasons, it follows that other governments might be doing the same thing. Pointing to cost estimates furnished by other governments really don't fill me with warm and fuzzy feelings.
Governments are the only source of solid evidence we have on this subject matter. Fact is, none of the countries considering the F-35 have estimated the cost to be significantly, if at all, more than the Harper's estimates. None.
Here is another source, 2 days old.
Here, the more refined estimate is 37.5-40 Billion NOK for 50-52 aircraft. That's 7.153 Billion CAD, and 9.299 Billion CAD for 65, assuming the highest cost, and lowest aircraft(worst case).
This is overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to the F-35's cost being near what Harper estimated. Do you have any shred of solid evidence pointing otherwise?
I'll save one of our contributors the trouble and say (completely in jest, of course) that those gentlemen cannot possibly know how to budget for jet fighters and are 100% wrong about everything they said.
BTW if you are unsure of exactly what a "Canada Research Chair" is, look it up. A CRC isn't a piece of furniture; a CRC is a person who is one of the cream of the crop in Canadian academia who has been extensively recruited, vetted, and made privy to extended funding for leading-edge research at a Canadian university.
Well, he made several crucial mistakes in that article.
1. He compared the cost of the Estimated cost from 2016-2020+ to the current LRIP cost.
2. He claims stealth only benefits in covert attacks, which is blatantly untrue as stealth is key to modern air supremacy.
3. He praises the Super Hornet and yet bashes the F-35's speed and range despite the two are equivalent in those regards.
4. He believes the maximum speed of a fighter aircraft is a useful statistic, especially in an air defense role.
5. He claims UK cut the numbers of F-35 as a result of the plane itself while not mentioning the fact that the UK is in serious financial **** right now and is cutting ALL programs across the board. From not purchasing guns in their Typhoons, and instead filling them with cement, to cutting aircraft carriers.
6. He criticizes the Stealth aspect of the F-35 sacrifices performances in speed and range, and yet he fails to mention how the Hornet, and indeed the Super Hornet being naval aircraft, goes great lengths to strengthen their airframe, as well as decreasing their angles of sweep which both massively decrease speed and range at high speeds.
I don't care which organization he is from, but the mistakes are very amateurish.
Really the article points to the larger issue going on here - this purchase isn't really about the F-35 in and of themselves, it's about the larger plan to tear down government. Since they have to spend so much money on building up the military, OAS has to be reduced. Thousands of jobs need to be eliminated, programs slashed, funding cut. The F-35 is a convenient way to spend a lot of money on things we don't need but happens to dovetail nicely with the ideology.
Look up Errol Mendes' article about the Revolution of the Night Watchman.
Do we need an air force? That is the question for you.
As I've said, this government seems hell-bent on buying the F-35 despite a loud chorus of expert opinions on that new aircraft's unsuitability.
Any expert that claims Stealth can ONLY be used for attack role should be dismissed on sight. Those are the only "experts" that call for the unsuitability.
F-22 for example, demonstrated its capabilities mainly due to stealth in routine exercises where inexperienced pilots easily overwhelmed superior numbers of experienced pilots in legacy fighters.
This has nothing to do with attacking an enemy territory, but to handle aerial threats, which affect air defense.
Stealth in fact is seen as so effective that the worlds navies are scrambling to modernize with stealth corvettes frigates and destroyers where stealth isn't there to evade enemy batteries, but to minimize detection from fighters and their missiles.
The Russians and Chinese are both rushing to put Stealth Interceptors into service.
But why would they? After all, they have the worlds most robust ground based air defense networks in the world. Far surpassing ANY SAM system in the west in both quantity and quality. Why would they spend billions in stealth fighters if all the "Experts" believe that stealth is useless in air defense role?
Hows this for suitability?
Those on this forum and your expert are calling for the Super Hornet to replace the F-35 by quoting that F-35 is a bomb truck.
Do you have any clue as to what the Super Hornet is?
Not only does the Super Hornet inadequately
replaced the Tomcat in order to save costs as an interceptor
, it also replaced the A-6, a dedicated attack aircraft. It is a mediocre air dominance fighter for this generation, while having great attack capabilities. Its designed to fly efficiently at low speeds, carry a lot of ordinance, and having very short bursts of supersonic speed.