It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada Officially Cancels US F35 Purchase!!

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


My comment would be that with respect to military spending, you can not compare Canada to the US. The two countries are too different in this respect.

The billions of dollars for these fighter jets would be nothing to the US, but for Canada it is a major consideration. The fact it was such a large amount of money (relatively speaking) the government felt the need to decieve the country of the details...

Difference of scale.


I see now


I respectfully retract my statement. Thanks for the follow up.




posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
I'll never understand my countrymen in this regard. Why is it Canadians seem to have a problem with defense spending?


We will NEVER EVER have a military as big as the U.S and the only country who would ever invade us would be the U.S. lol. Since this will probably never, ever happen.. Let's just sit back, save our money and let our big brother buy the weapons because they will defend us.

Don't think for a moment my Americanos that we take this for granite. I sleep easier at night knowing.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Replace the F35 with the AVRO ARROW.....................!
It may still be a top line interceptor.....
The multirole f35s may be just no good at much of anything......
At least i have heard that said.....
We probanly could have a totally canadian aircraft but the US killed off our aiecraft industry with the ARROW>>>>
The need for long range reconaissance in the North is far greater than new fighters....F 18s can launch all the nessessary anti air missiles there are....Bear bombers are not that fast.....



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Excellent. Now, if we'd put production of the Arrow back on the table, we'd be all set.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Excellent. Now, if we'd put production of the Arrow back on the table, we'd be all set.


Look above ya, bud.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Loving this idea. The CF-105 Arrow (rather amusingly, all things considered) outperforms the F-35. Yeah, it's huge in comparison, it's a two-seat instead of a single, and it's not even a little bit stealthy, but the Arrow could fly faster and just as high with significantly lower wing loading and a comparable thrust-to-weight ratio. Not to mention how utterly overpowered the Orenda Iroquois engine was.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
I'll never understand my countrymen in this regard. Why is it Canadians seem to have a problem with defense spending?


We will NEVER EVER have a military as big as the U.S and the only country who would ever invade us would be the U.S. lol. Since this will probably never, ever happen.. Let's just sit back, save our money and let our big brother buy the weapons because they will defend us.

Don't think for a moment my Americanos that we take this for granite. I sleep easier at night knowing.


I never claimed we needed even half the military might that the U.S possesses. But some of the feel good naive hippy crap I've read in this thread is ridiculous. You all sound so confident in the future. It's almost like you can predict it! Care to tell me the winning numbers for the next lottomax while you're at it?

The average joe didn't see either of the first two world wars coming. What makes you all so confident there wont be a 3rd? I'm no war monger but relying on a neighboring country to take care of you is just pathetic and shows a complete disregard for any sort of national self respect. I'm not sure why this has become the trend in this country over the last 40 years but it's nauseating.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Loving this idea. The CF-105 Arrow (rather amusingly, all things considered) outperforms the F-35. Yeah, it's huge in comparison, it's a two-seat instead of a single, and it's not even a little bit stealthy, but the Arrow could fly faster and just as high with significantly lower wing loading and a comparable thrust-to-weight ratio. Not to mention how utterly overpowered the Orenda Iroquois engine was.


While I'm proud of what Canada accomplished with the Arrow, comparing it with a 5th generation fighter is just ludicrous. I would fully support the money being used to develop a Canadian made 5th generation fighter but the defense infrastructure we once had just isn't there anymore. After the arrow was scrapped under pressure from the U.S and all our world class aerospace engineers and defense contractors were shipped south (which had a conveniently amazing impact on U.S air superiority) we had little choice but to buy U.S made fighters.

Would I like to see Canada use some of it's resources to rejuvenate such a program? Absolutely. But judging from many of the comments in this thread, most of the bleeding heart liberals would have a hissy fit over the idea of investing in our nations defense even more than the government has already tried to do with the F-35.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I don't have an issue with Canada spending on defence , it's the offence I don't agree with. Bombing Libya and Afghanistan is not defensive. Unless another country poses a direct threat to Canadian soil, I think Canada should stay neutral. Just my .02.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I don't understand , if they have all this money to buy fighter jets we don't need. They should spend it on Search and Rescue helicopters that we desperately need. We've needed them for a long time and it's about time we bought some and I think you would find most Canadians would not have a problem with it. Helicopters are used for saving people, jets for killing people. Let the Americans buy the jets, they are the ones interested in war. Like it or not the U.S.A. has no choice but to help defend Canada if we are ever attacked. Once the attackers get Canada , everyone knows where the next step is. If we have to buy some jets, which would probably be a good idea. It doesn't mean we have to buy the most expensive ones on the market. We basically use them for self defence, or no fly zones and for intercepting a Russian bomber or two that has strayed off course. lol. It would also be cheaper to toss some money America's way for their help in defending our country. That way every ones happy. There must be cheaper ways to defend our border , like ground to air missle defense systems. probably easier to shoot jets from the ground anyway. Lot's of options but we do need Helicopters to replace the sea kings.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I wouldn't count on this. There is a better chance we will go to Europe for a replacement for our current aircraft fleet.

These contracts won't be signed in 2015, that's an election year. That would be akin to political suicide for the Conservatives after what the KPMG report has said, along with the AG. I know you're not Canadian Z so that little wrinkle wouldn't be evident for ya.

As for the F-35, I have read stories about it's lack of capability for our needs. As a country that spends a lot of time patrolling the high Arctic, I have read things that have basically said it isn't capable to do what we need in that environment.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


Oh, I seriously doubt that it's likely, I was just throwing the possibility out there.

I would take the anti-F-35 papers with a grain of salt, as the plane is turning into quite a nice airframe as testing goes on. I was about as anti-F-35 as you could be as late as a month or less ago, but after reading up on the testing program, and seeing some of the new information out there, I'm quite impressed with some of the things they've been doing.

For example, the reliability rate in the testing program is the one of the highest that has ever been seen in any testing program to date. This includes the early years, when Kelly Johnson was designing.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


It's not ludicrous at all when you compare the basic specifications. First up, the Arrow...


Length: 77 ft 9 in (23.71 m)
Wingspan: 50 ft 0 in (15.24 m)
Height: 21 ft 2 in (6.25 m)
Wing area: 1,225 ft² (113.8 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 0003.5 mod root, NACA 0003.8 tip
Empty weight: 49,040 lb (22,245 kg)
Loaded weight: 56,920 lb (25,820 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 68,605 lb (31,120 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney J75-P-3 turbojets (early prototype, no Iroquois available)
Dry thrust: 12,500 lbf (55.6 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 23,500 lbf (104.53 kN) each
Maximum speed: Mach 1.98 (1,307 mph, 2,104 km/h) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m) max. recorded speed; Mach 2+ potential[113]
Cruise speed: Mach 0.91 (607 mph, 977 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
Combat radius: 360 NM (410 mi, 660 km)
Service ceiling: 53,000 ft (16,150 m)
Wing loading: 46.5 lb/ft² (226.9 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.825 at loaded weight

And now for the F-35:


Length: 51.4 ft (15.67 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft[N 5] (10.7 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[N 6] (4.33 m)
Wing area: 460 ft²[215] (42.7 m²)
Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,540 lb[167][N 7][437] (22,470 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb[N 8] (31,800 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[438][N 9] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[438][439] (191 kN)
Internal fuel capacity: 18,480 lb (8,382 kg)[N 10]
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[209] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (Tested to Mach 1.61)[324]
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: 584 nmi[440] (1,080 km) on internal fuel[441]
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft[442] (18,288 m) (Tested to 43,000 ft)[443]
Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²; 526 kg/m2 loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: 0.87
With 50% fuel: 1.07

Is the F-35 more advanced technologically? Without question. But think of what could be done with the extra space on the Arrow airframe today, using modern avionics and weapons.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadeWolf
 


Except that if they went with the Arrow, it would probably end up at least as expensive as the F-35. They would need start up costs, R&D costs, test program costs, and if the program went long, they'd have over runs, etc. It's not so much a matter of the performance, as it is the entire point of the F-35 rebid was about cost, which with what would be essentially a brand new program, you'd end up with a high cost again.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join