US Approves Canadian Super Hornet Sale

>>35146944
>You want to waste your money on those? Sure, go for it.

>>35146944
i dont know why /k/ likes to shit on the f-18s theyre good planes

>>35147858
They aren't really good unless you're operating CATOBAR carriers.

>>35147894
yeah, but theyre still good. not near bad enough to warrant the hate they get here.
although to /k/ anything that isnt the f-34 or the su-35 is automatic shit

>>35147858
Because it's not an f14 or f22.

>>35147909
Well the F35 is better, but I just find it weird any country would buy a carrier plane when they don't have any carriers. If you're shopping for a fighter to sortie from a runway why not like a F16, or a Strike Eagle?

>>35147909
For the Price to Value it makes no sense to buy a Super Hornet if you're able to buy an F-35, or even an F-16 variant if you aren't doing anything carrier-based.

>>35147894
Lots of nations flew Hornets exclusively for a long time though

>>35147973
>>35147975
If you kill your enemies, they win. Canada doesn't want it's enemies to win.

File: 1497653994082.jpg (479KB, 1200x853px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 1200x853px

>>35147973

>Canada
>Purchasing a plane whose entire gimmick is strictly frontal aspect LO for the purpose of first strikes

Since when does Canada conduct first strike missions against industrialized nations with sophisticated weapons?

The F-35 is totally fucking redundant for Canada.

We should just get a bomb truck and a bunch of JDAM kits, we're only going to be murdering goat fuckers in a semi-ineffectual manner for the next 30 years on behalf of Israel.

File: F-35 vs F-18.png (345KB, 1110x756px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1110x756px

>>35148198
Let's just use the large region Canada want to patrol.

The inner circle is a Super Hornet's max radius (from Cold Lake AB) of 400nmi.

The Outer is the F-35's A2A intercept radius of 760. Nearly twice the distance on just internal fuel.

The fact that you think that the F-35 is only good for one thing is telling of your ignorance.

>>35148198
>he thinks the F-35 is just a stealthy F-18
>'frontal aspect'
>'LO'
>this guy probably has a folder full of APA infographics.
>forgets RCAF had presence in balkans conflict and desert storm

>>35147973
We use the arresting hooks for landing on Icy / Snowy runways. Dont need a carrier

File: EA-18 Growler desert.jpg (750KB, 3543x2362px) Image search: [Google]

750KB, 3543x2362px

>>35146944
This is a mistake. Super Bugs without Growlers will be quite vulnerable to a modern integrated air defense network.

>>35148425
To be fair, it's not any more vulnerable than say, a Gripen.

>>35148425
So...about as vulnerable as the hornets we already have? If anything these would be more effective although i still disagree with the purchase.

>>35148326
Canada and Lockheed will have to tackle the Drogue conversion issue though

File: F35 pilot.jpg (900KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

900KB, 1600x1067px

>>35148478
Gripen would be a mistake also.

>>35148486
Of course its an improvement over the current Bugs. But my first choice for Canada would be the F35A. My second would be Super Bugs and Growlers.

>>35148549
Hopefully they don't waste money on the Super Bugs, Trudeau will be out next election and hopefully whoever replaces him will go back to buying the F-35

>>35148562
The Canadian military acquisition process can be boiled down to "I expected nothing and I'm still disappointed". Libs and Conservative governments have been fumbling the ball for decades.

>>35148562
Yes goy. Buy our overpriced, overriced, overequipped dick enlarger jet fighter even though you're not America's deputy. Don't you fear the Chinese? China will invade you if you don't buy our expensive unneeded iJet X. Buy it now goy, before we jack up prices in the future.

>>35148604
Conservatives atleast replaced our Ancient Leopard 1s with Leopard 2's, The military in general has been downhill since the Cold war ended, Only a slight peak when we got involved in Afghanistan.

>>35148619
Yes, dont be want to be a bad goyim and buy used planes that will be obsolete in 10 years

>>35146944
Any country that does not buy the F-35 does not care about having a capable military.

That are basically inviting the enemy to wipe them out.

>>35148425
So will F-35, ain't no triangles stopping the ass end of a Lightning from lighting up.

>>35148637
I want us to buy the F-35 too but what you said is retarded

>>35148490
It'd probably be trivial to make a "CF-35" with a probe instead of a port like the B and C versions have.

File: faUYh.jpg (96KB, 420x313px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 420x313px

>>35148645
>Thinks the F-35's rear aspect is even close to what 4th gens are

That's a stealth nozzle there. It rediverts heat into the cooling systems and has RF protections.

It's a small acquisition of new airframes, the majority of current CF-188s have pretty much been flown to the point of beyond economical repair.

>>35148702
This is only enough for a single squadron though

>>35148691
Just ask yourself one thing anon, do you really think that's as stealthy as a F-22 or F-117 engine?

>>35148715
If Canada does buy the superbugs, they'll probably be distributed around all the squadrons to replace some of the aircraft that are due for retirement.

At any rate, Canada's military acquisition procedures have been a clusterfuck for decades.

>>35148768

There is little commonality between the hornet and super hornet, doing that would be a logistical clusterfuck.

>>35148750
To the F-117? Probably not. The F-22? Yes. The F-22's shape is about the thrust vectoring, it isn't stealthier.

>>35148962
Canada doesn't have a logistical system worth a damn in the first place, I doubt the addition of the Super Bugs would make things any worse than they already are.

>>35149194
So has a F-117 been shot down anon? Modern radar networks will have no problem tracking the F-35 at anything other than standoff range. Also I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the F-22 not having stealthier engines.

>>35148326
TBF, CFTs are coming in Block 3 which should boost that to ~650nm.

>>35149898
The F-117 that was shot down in Serbia wasn't even locked onto until it was within visual range and had its bomb bay doors open. In Red Flag, etc F-35s have been able to drop JDAMs on double-digit SAMs; JDAMs have a range of about 10km. Even if it can't do that against an SA-21, how much further will it realistically be pushed back? If it's ~100km the F-35 can use SDBs to take it out. With Block 4 and the JSM (and probably AARGM-ER near the end of Block 4) it'll be able to engage SAMs from well outside the max range of a 40N6, let alone the detection or tracking range of the radars trying to guide it.

As for IR stealth; the F-35's engine is just one of the F-22's engines with a higher bypass ratio (more cold flow) and a slightly higher combustion temperature. Even if the F-22's nozzle happened to be better at minimising its signature, it has double the engines / double the plumes.

>>35150034
Serbian radar has 100% detection rate for shills.

File: 20150323raaf8161446_0034.jpg (1MB, 3600x2400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3600x2400px

Welcome to the club, wankers.

>>35146944
Honestly they should just go for whatever's cheapest.

They need a functioning navy before they need any kind of airwing.

Trudeau likely wants a non-stealth plane as it gives him a way to avoid committing Canada to combat missions overseas without actually having to say "no"

>>35152774
He wants Canada to continue to be a useless ally that relies on America for defense.