F-16.net

mixelflick wrote:I've said it before elsewhere, but the F-15EX is perfect for Canada.

Big, carries an incredible array of air to air weapons, long legs, exceptional radar/sensors and a 20,000 hour airframe life. Precisely what Canada needs for air defense, and swing role lends itself to meeting its NATO obligations.

Plus, who flies their jets longer than Canada? 20,000 hour life suits them perfectly. It'll be expensive, but no aircraft they buy will be inexpensive. Sure, I'd like to see them get the F-35. But the politics/drama and how they run their fighter acquisition process makes India look competent.

F-15EX is right up their alley!

Except that they could get F-35’s that do more for less.

mixelflick wrote:I've said it before elsewhere, but the F-15EX is perfect for Canada.

Big, carries an incredible array of air to air weapons, long legs, exceptional radar/sensors and a 20,000 hour airframe life. Precisely what Canada needs for air defense, and swing role lends itself to meeting its NATO obligations.

Plus, who flies their jets longer than Canada? 20,000 hour life suits them perfectly. It'll be expensive, but no aircraft they buy will be inexpensive. Sure, I'd like to see them get the F-35. But the politics/drama and how they run their fighter acquisition process makes India look competent.

F-15EX is right up their alley!

They can't afford it. They especially can't afford it after they accidentally on purpose let it slip that 65 for what is replacing CF-18 won't be enough with their silly "fighter gap" gambit. now theyre on the hook for even more airplanes


F-15s got rejected decades ago for all the same reasons they would be rejected today by the same country. They simply can't afford it.

Remember what makes F-15Ex so seductive is the idea that the US is already an F-15 operator so all the hard work is mostly done, all the capital invested etc etc. Canada will have no such "head start"

mixelflick wrote:I've said it before elsewhere, but the F-15EX is perfect for Canada.

Big, carries an incredible array of air to air weapons, long legs, exceptional radar/sensors and a 20,000 hour airframe life. Precisely what Canada needs for air defense, and swing role lends itself to meeting its NATO obligations.

Plus, who flies their jets longer than Canada? 20,000 hour life suits them perfectly. It'll be expensive, but no aircraft they buy will be inexpensive. Sure, I'd like to see them get the F-35. But the politics/drama and how they run their fighter acquisition process makes India look competent.

F-15EX is right up their alley!

What??? The F-15EX or whatever they decide to call it. Is no more survivable than any other 4/4.5 Generation Fighter. (Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, Super Hornet, etc.)

So, again how would the F-15EX be perfect for Canada???

Two engines, large range, big radar to spot/track incoming, long life to suit Canadian interests. Only problem is Boeing make them. Actually a Block 3 Super Hornet with CFTs would match the same criteria. Does Canada really need stealth in their generally defensive posture ?

marsavian wrote:Two engines, large range, big radar to spot/track incoming, long life to suit Canadian interests. Only problem is Boeing make them. Actually a Block 3 Super Hornet with CFTs would match the same criteria. Does Canada really need stealth in their generally defensive posture ?

The F-35A has better Range, Sensors, and Stealth.....This while being cheaper and already in production.

Eagles with full CFT/EFT are quoted at 1000nm combat radius which current F-35 specification can't match. Eagle has a bigger AESA than F-35 and if your prime reason for being is intercepting Blackjacks, Backfires, Bears and any missiles they are carrying why exactly do you need stealth ? Surely a fast rangy interceptor with big radar and missile capacity might be better suited. F-35 is not the answer to every fighter requirement.

marsavian wrote:Eagles with full CFT/EFT are quoted at 1000nm combat radius which current F-35 specification can't match. Eagle has a bigger AESA than F-35 and if your prime reason for being is intercepting Blackjacks, Backfires, Bears and any missiles they are carrying why exactly do you need stealth ? Surely a fast rangy interceptor with big radar and missile capacity might be better suited. F-35 is not the answer to every fighter requirement.

You have no idea what you're talking about. That said, just include the F-15X in Canada's Open and Fair Fighter Competition and see how it favors.....

I have stated facts while it seems Politics is your game .

marsavian wrote:I have stated facts while it seems Politics is your game .

Sorry, those are hardly "facts".....

Is an F-15EXclamation a paper airyplane at moment? P'raps ISRAEL will lend some mythical EFT/CFTs to CANADIAN F-35As?

Honestly, if the USAF or RCAF would want the F-15X. Then hold a competition and let the chips fall as they lay....

marsavian wrote:Eagles with full CFT/EFT are quoted at 1000nm combat radius which current F-35 specification can't match. Eagle has a bigger AESA than F-35 and if your prime reason for being is intercepting Blackjacks, Backfires, Bears and any missiles they are carrying why exactly do you need stealth ? Surely a fast rangy interceptor with big radar and missile capacity might be better suited. F-35 is not the answer to every fighter requirement.

Of that, range is the only valid argument, and that is marginal at best. As far as the radar goes, processing power probably matters more than the small difference in size, and stealth provides a huge advantage in interception, from decreasing the ability of the target to evade intercept to decreasing his ability to evade missiles.

Canada doesn't need stealth, given its primarily defensive posture. If called to fulfill their NATO commitments, they'll just do what a lot of other countries do - let "someone else" (cough, America) fight first. They'll go in second, which once the US takes out the IADS, they'll be just fine zipping around in Eagles.

They'll love the fact it has 2 engines, has good range and carries a lot of well, everything.

Yes, expense will be a factor. Capability will be a factor. And poltics as always, will be a factor. But does anyone here really believe the Canadian evaluation is going to be logical, after witnessing how Canada runs its acquisition programs so far?

So Canadian Government rejects BOING! Super Hornets YET will suffer the BOING! F-15fedEX? Come On. Politics JUNIOR!

mixelflick wrote:Canada doesn't need stealth, given its primarily defensive posture. If called to fulfill their NATO commitments, they'll just do what a lot of other countries do - let "someone else" (cough, America) fight first. They'll go in second, which once the US takes out the IADS, they'll be just fine zipping around in Eagles.

Except thats absolutely not true whatsoever?

November1941 Deployment to Hong Kong
Dieppe Raid, Italian, Normandy and Scheldt Campaigns.
Korean War
Cold War Brigade and Squadron at Lahr and Baden Baden Germany
UNSOM II in Somalia
UN Operations in the Former Yugoslavia


Just in the last the last 10 years:

12 years of operations in Afghanistan, from the start through some of the worst of the fighting.
Air ops during the Libyan conflict
Air ops for Syrian Conflict
Enhanced foreign Presence in the Baltic
Baltic air policing mission
Romanian air policing mission

Please tell me where we take a "defensive posture" and come in a secondary role behind other countries? I'll tell you the only time it happened, the Gulf War. Say what you will about our procurement system, but Canada's actual defence posture has always been on to put our troops on the front lines alongside allies.

Please if you're going to talk about Canadian Defence, have the decency to learn a bit about it?