krisyyz From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1588 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 days ago) and read 11498 times:
Politically, it's a disaster but I'm glad they pulled the plug. I personally think the Super Hornet is the most viable and available option. While not a 5 Generation fighter, the F-18E/F would be cost effective and it's twin engine design would be an asset on long-range sorties.
Interesting comparison of Canada's options and potential adversaries.
powerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 534 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 days ago) and read 11471 times:
Quoting krisyyz (Reply 2): the F-18E/F would be cost effective and it's twin engine design would be an asset on long-range sorties.
So would a Bombardier business jet with weapon pylons, probably be cheaper to operate and we'd be supporting the Canadian economy. Who cares about our pilots though, who'd be lit-up by SAMs from hundreds of miles away.
krisyyz From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1588 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11461 times:
Quoting powerslide (Reply 4): So would a Bombardier business jet with weapon pylons, probably be cheaper to operate and we'd be supporting the Canadian economy. Who cares about our pilots though, who'd be lit-up by SAMs from hundreds of miles away.
Well the F-22 is not an option, at the moment. Getting some Super hornets as an interim replacement for the CF-18 until the F-35 costs are reduced, and its effectiveness is proven would be a smart option in my opinion. I would prefer we buy the best and most capable 5th Gen fighter for our brave men and women, but what other options are out there? What's your suggestion? The Eurofighter? The Gripen is a great little plane, but I don't think it would work for us.
That is terrible. The factual data is inaccurate for most of the aircraft such as
1. they have included the F-22 in the potential options area
2. they have the Super Hornet as a two seater only,
3. claim the Rafale is a stealth aircraft
4. apparently the Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale can supercruise but the F-35 can't
5. have incorrect hard points for at least the Typhoon and the F-35
6. and best of all, have a range figure for the J-20 without having an internal fuel load or engine thrust figure.
powerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 534 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11438 times:
Quoting krisyyz (Reply 5): Getting some Super hornets as an interim replacement
Lets see the costs for these "throw-away" fighters, not to mention the price for pilot training, equipment, maintenance training, hangars, technical manuals etc, etc. You don't see the big picture.
Quoting krisyyz (Reply 5): I would prefer we buy the best and most capable 5th Gen fighter for our brave men and women, but what other options are out there? What's your suggestion?
The F-35. Its the future of the US air fleet and as our closest ally its the most logical choice. We could fly into any airbase in the US or Europe and not have to bring tones and tones of parts and equipment with us because they'll be available from an international pool of contractors. Can't do that with the Super Hornet or Eurofighter. People just don't understand that in the long run the F-35 is still the cheapest choice, no one has done a cost comparison of the other fighters. They see the massive cost of the F-35 as a stand alone price, I want to see the cost of operating the Super Hornet and Eurofighter for 30 years when everyone has already retired them.
krisyyz From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1588 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11417 times:
Quoting Ozair (Reply 6): That is terrible. The factual data is inaccurate for most of the aircraft
For sure, not to mention the pic of the super hornet is of an F-18.
Quoting powerslide (Reply 7): Lets see the costs for these "throw-away" fighters, not to mention the price for pilot training, equipment, maintenance training, hangars, technical manuals etc, etc. You don't see the big picture.
I wouldn't consider them "throw-away" fighters, but I get your point. The RAAF has taken a similar approach to their fighter purchase. While the F-35 will be a great plane, some day, the motives of the decision are clearly political. The government could not go to the Canadian people and explain why the costs have gone out of control, even after they said their estimates are sound. The CF-18s have to go, the F-35 seems to be out of the picture for a while so we need new planes to keep our Air Force capable. I never said the Super hornet would be the best choice for Canada, but it is the most viable option given the fiscal and political climate. Yes, it is sad that politics will override operational needs and the opinion of the RCAF brass, but that's reality. Hopefully something can be done the salvage the deal, but I find it highly improbable.
powerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 534 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11376 times:
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 12): Honestly I hope Canada just runs off and does something else. Sick of hearing all the whining about this subject from there.
Time to make this entire fighter procurement subject a top-secret issue in Canada. Don't announce anything until the purchase contract, for whatever, is signed. The media has already showed that it can't report facts on this topic so we need to shut them up.
tommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11337 times:
Quoting powerslide (Reply 7): I want to see the cost of operating the Super Hornet and Eurofighter for 30 years when everyone has already retired them.
Affordability for the U.S. and our allies is challenged because unit prices are about double what they were at program start and with new forecasts that the aircraft may cost substantially more to operate and maintain over the life cycle than the legacy aircraft they replace.
Further, while the Department is still refining cost projections for operating and supporting future JSF fleets, cost forecasts have increased as the program matures and more data becomes available. Current JSF life-cycle cost estimates are considerably higher than the legacy aircraft it will replace; this has major implications for future demands on military operating and support budgets and plans for recapitalizing fighter forces.
- GAO Report April 2011, GAO-11-325
powerslide you keep claiming the F-35 is the cheapest alternative - which is at odds with many respectable sources like the US GAO and others. Do you have a respectable source to back that up?
Again you fail to understand my post. First of all, this doesn't apply to the US and second of all, that report from 2011 doesn't address the issues of Canucks operating, funding and upgrading an airframe no longer supported by the US - a la super hornet.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1386 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11271 times:
Quoting powerslide (Reply 15): Again you fail to understand my post. First of all, this doesn't apply to the US and second of all, that report from 2011 doesn't address the issues of Canucks operating, funding and upgrading an airframe no longer supported by the US - a la super hornet.
Especially when the supply chain is no longer present to support aircraft; it gets VERY expensive very fast for even the smallest of spare parts, and your serviceability suffers greatly. You need to have the supplier and all of the sub-component suppliers continue to support the aircraft with spare parts and upgrades throughout the life and use of the aircraft.
One can look at the ongoing issues with supporting the CF DHC-5 fleet as an example; of the 5 we operate, realistically, only 1 is serviceable at all times and the rest are all grounded for lack of spare parts. We are lucky to have 2 serviceable on a good day. The reason being is that practically all of the spare parts manufacturers have quit making the parts needed to support the aircraft and every part becomes a special order for what is essentially a unique variant of an already unsupported aircraft. And it doesn't matter if you have the rights to the aircraft; what matters is the sub-component manufacturers; for example, will Dowty continue to make the landing gear? Will Hamilton-Standard continue to make the propellers?
Quoting powerslide (Reply 7): People just don't understand that in the long run the F-35 is still the cheapest choice, no one has done a cost comparison of the other fighters.
How did I not understand what you said? Or help me understand you, if this is not what you mean. But I think I do understand, because you have often made that same claim - without any credible source to back it up by the way.
Assuming I did understand you correctly, the United States Government Accountability Office did study this and made a comparison and published the clear conclussion. They are one of the most thorough and respected unbiased sources anywhere. They are not going to bash a US Government program for fun. When they say the F-35 is significantly more expensive than all legacy aircraft it is slated to replace - in all metrics, that includes the Super Hornet, F-16 and F-15 among others - all of which are still in production today and fully supported and will be well into the future. I don't understand why you and ThePointblank, try to spin things, as if support would suddenly dry up.
Even after production stops, support is still available, that's part of the contract in many cases. If it's a competition between you, ThePointblank Vs. The United States Government Accountability Office, I think you lose.
If you want to say that for Canada, this US GAO report is not applicable, and that the F-35 becomes cheaper for Canada over the US Legacy fighters for some reasons, I ask, what are those reasons? What is your source?
I think it is reasonable to say that any extra expenses for Canada specific purposes would apply to any aircraft.
For the USA the F-35 is the most expensive choice according to the United States Government Accountability Office. Why would it be any different for Canada?
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1386 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11198 times:
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18): When they say the F-35 is significantly more expensive than all legacy aircraft it is slated to replace - in all metrics, that includes the Super Hornet, F-16 and F-15 among others - all of which are still in production today and fully supported and will be well into the future. I don't understand why you and ThePointblank, try to spin things, as if support would suddenly dry up.
F-16's line is about to be wrapped up; there hasn't been a major order from a customer for years. And with the USAF and European Partner Air Forces about to dispose of their F-16's, the largest users of the F-16, the support network and incentive for a suppliers to continue to supply spare parts will shrink. Upgrades will also more costly as a smaller group of user(s) will be able to develop and pay for upgrades.
Super Hornet: The line is expected to finish the last Super Hornet in about 2 years time. The USN will then plan to start disposing of the Super Hornet fleet by 2020. Then there will be no major user of the Super Hornet, which would be a serviceability nightmare for anyone still using the Hornet.
F-15: the line also has very minimal orders right now. Production will wrap up probably in a few years. And the biggest user, the USAF will start disposing of F-15's in a few years time. What's going to happen 20-30 years from now? Will there still be support?
It's now what is being supported NOW, it is what is expected to be supported 20-30 years from now. Will Super Hornet be supported? How about F-15 or F-16? It is very likely that all three will be museum pieces by then.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18): Even after production stops, support is still available, that's part of the contract in many cases. If it's a competition between you, ThePointblank Vs. The United States Government Accountability Office, I think you lose.
No, support is dependent on the suppliers of individual parts. If there is a big enough customer base, suppliers will continue to support the various bits of the aircraft. If there isn't a big enough customer base, they won't continue to support it.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11419 posts, RR: 24 Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10896 times:
Quoting krisyyz (Reply 9): The government could not go to the Canadian people and explain why the costs have gone out of control, even after they said their estimates are sound. The CF-18s have to go, the F-35 seems to be out of the picture for a while so we need new planes to keep our Air Force capable. I never said the Super hornet would be the best choice for Canada, but it is the most viable option given the fiscal and political climate.
I think that's a great summary of where things are at.
If F35 was available at the promised time and on the promised budget it'd be a better purchase, but that just isn't where we are at. I think the SH will fulfill most roles the RCAF has short of sailing off to Armageddon, and I kind of doubt they will be doing that.
Quoting krisyyz (Reply 9): Yes, it is sad that politics will override operational needs and the opinion of the RCAF brass, but that's reality.
To me, it's sad that defense officials and contractors cannot discipline themselves to stay within the schedules and budgets they commit to. It's particularly upsetting in the case of F35 because they went through the exercise of producing flying proof of concepts but still have managed to be horrendously late and over budget.
The "fiscal and political climate" of Canada does not allow for such horrendous overruns, but the US's largely does, because foreign entities are still willing to by US debt at meager returns and with not much hope of being repaid long term.
I'm sad the taxpayers of Canada aren't getting what they were promised, but I'm glad the rest of the partners as well as the world-wide defense industry is getting some feedback that there is a point where their products just aren't affordable (see F22, US101. A400M) and the customer will indeed walk away.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1270 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10979 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 24): The "fiscal and political climate" of Canada does not allow for such horrendous overruns, but the US's largely does, because foreign entities are still willing to by US debt at meager returns and with not much hope of being repaid long term.
That's only half the story, I'd say. Yes, the U.S. has an amazing ability to go into debt, but it seems to me that defense contracts have a unique position that makes the country much more willing to keep going into debt for them. They're one of the least reproachful kinds of pork, they fall under the "tough on defense" banner, and there are very few options besides the usual players for getting the capability we feel we require, so there's less pressure to deliver something that actually works on time and on budget. But that's another thread.
25 tugger: I think you are mixing up the review of historical costs and what future costs will be. Yes the past historic costs of the F-18Super Hornet are lower
26 powerslide: If this was true then why do our C/D hornets sit idle for months on end due to lack of available parts? Many of the parts are already dry and basic t
27 kanban: and then there's this new contract for more F/A 18's by the US Navy http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...ing-fighters-idUSL1E8MUHQF20121130 I look a
28 BigJKU: A few points on this. 1. It assumes the US won't effectively exhaust the life of every part as it winds down the operation of F-18E's. They will stop
29 boeingfixer: What C/D Hornets!? If you're going to push opinion as fact, then at least get one fact straight. We have A/B Hornets. We are in desperate need of rep
30 tommytoyz: Many planes were operated for decades after their production had stopped. It's standard procedure. P-3 KC-135 T-38 U-2 F-4 F-14 Jaguar Tornado B-2 B-
31 kanban: It's just an opinion, but it looks like they dug themselves a hole that will be costly to fill no matter what they select.. while other countries app
32 bikerthai: Didn't the Aussies just bought some SH? Maybe our Canadian friends should not look to the US Navy to get spare parts if they decide to buy the F-18 SH
33 tugger: To be honest I think this is what will happen. As is often the case with politicians, if you can't make a safe decision (i.e. one that has no blow-ba
34 BigJKU: Sure, but Australia has a reasonable plan moving forward which will see the newest of their SH's be turned into EA-18's to support F-35 operations go
35 tommytoyz: Perhaps Canada can consider some UCAVS like the Global Hawk or Predator C and ask the manufacturers what they can have available in 2020 such as the N
36 BigJKU: I don't think it is fantastic by any stretch but I don't think it is any worse than pretty much every other major aviation/complex military system be
37 tommytoyz: I think UCAVS are far more of a realistic option than they are being given credit for. Especially for a vast country like Canada. The link below has a
38 powerslide: Looking at our Air Force fleet, we generally keep things around for a while, long, long while. Our current Hornets should have been retired years ago
39 connies4ever: I will not comment on the many pro and con arguments made in this thread, since there are far too many, some reasonable, many not (those being made by
40 powerslide: I would like to point out that the Conservatives have the majority government, thus making the opposition irrelevant. The only failure has been politi
41 Devilfish: Yeah.....bring on the Silent Eagle! . http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__...acecombat/images/8/80/F-15SE-1.jpg
42 BigJKU: It can be yours today if you want to write a check for R&D that has the word billion somewhere on it.
43 krisyyz: That's a very valid point. While the big jump in technology is obviously challenging for L.M , a 60% jump in acquisition costs is simply too much to
44 Devilfish: I'll pass. I think Boeing is trying mightily to convince South Korea to write that check for them..... . http://defense-update.com/20120914_silent_ea
45 powerslide: It's still cheaper than the F-35. I'm not going to back up this statement or make any research into it. I'm an "expert" in the journalistic world so
46 connies4ever: Simply.....breathtaking (in arrogance quotient). From what I've read, here, there, and elsewhere, testing, due to that funky "concurrence" word, will
47 BigJKU: Concurrence on the F-35 should be an interesting thing. From what I understand the majority of the changes really are going to be in the software whi
48 kanban: Sadly true, however it is a result of sloppy or hurried design and procurement practices. Just because it appears to be a trend doesn't mean that we
49 BigJKU: Honestly I am not sure a more measured approach would save money. You could spend more time pinning down the exact scope of work and cost but I am no
50 ThePointblank: However, the biggest difference was there was a large enough customer base to continue support. There are hundreds of P-3's flying around the world,
51 tommytoyz: What is not being discussed, and perhaps merits a different thread, is the effect of the entire F-35 program due to the upcoming sequestration of the
52 ThePointblank: Not likely; the USAF has publically stated that they have a requirement for 1,763 F-35's. No less: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/1...heed-fighte
53 KiwiRob: The Norwegian media frequently site the Canadian F-35 purchase, love reporting on spiriling costs, now that Canadia looks like dropping out, with an
54 ThePointblank: However, the reports all need to be taken into context; how much would Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale, etc costs under the same cost assumptions?
55 powerslide: Not quite. Salaries for those in uniform have steadily increased in the past 5-10 years, in most cases higher than the Canadian average. While they m
56 tommytoyz: Asked and answered by the US GAO, which I already quoted above. They clearly say the F-35 will be significantly more expensive to acquire and operate
57 ThePointblank: Like the $106.1 million per aircraft fly away cost Super Hornet, correct? And you are using the mistake of LRIP contracts to determine the price of t
58 art: So what are you saying? Governments should cut back on non-miltary services if the military needs more money to fund its desired procurements? Govern
59 powerslide: The government, or media for that matter, hasn't offered anything of the sort. No one in Canada has proven that the other aircraft are cheaper to pur
60 kanban: just a mild quibble..both statements are presented as fact, yet both rely on decisions made by other parties... The Air Force may want 'x' number of
61 faro: In the arena of public opinion -to which all politicians are beholden- it is not enough to be, you also have to appear to be. The F-35 may well be the
62 Revelation: Which is another way of saying availability is excellent. Key words being "plan" and "start". As above, USN just contracted for another 15 SHs. Do yo
63 tommytoyz: I have done no such thing. I used the 2012 GAO report, who know how to calculate this properly. Your quibble then, is with those incompetent GAO guys
64 mffoda: It's funny though. All of those programs are still receiving $Billions$ of dollars in procurement and upgrades. Personally, I wouldn't bet my life on
65 Oroka: RCAF wants F-35s. We are now going to do a drawn out program to see what fighter best suits Canada's needs, and after a load of money is spent, it wi
66 connies4ever: No social tunnel vision there, for sure. No agenda, just an effort to get the truth, which as we all know is out there. b.t.w., was in the Imperial C
67 tommytoyz: Defense Secretary Robert Gates has often used a line in budget speeches noting, “We have more people in military bands than they have in the Foreign
68 YTZ: As someone who worked in one of those project offices, I resent this comment. A lot of the "failures' have less to do with the competency of the mili
69 YTZ: Maybe. Maybe not. Don't forget what happened with the Sea King replacement. The government pressured the CF to drop the three-engine requirement and
70 redflyer: I'm not taking sides in this debate, but I will say that your oft repeated reliance on the GAO as an irrefutable source makes me cringe. Although the
71 Ozair: I found this on the weekend http://disarmingconflict.ca/2012/04/...cycle-cost-estimate-comparisons-3/ with the associated table, http://disarmingconf
72 tommytoyz: That is a remarkable statement. One, you need to substantiate. If there have been many GAO reports in which their numbers have been considerably off
73 connies4ever: Sorry for hurt feelings, but this IS the bigs, after all. (BTW, worked on the nuclear submarine program 84-88 more or less. Was at DND HQ every 3-4 w
74 art: Much more. But then Gripen cost more than F-35 under the same cost assumptions. Let's see (a) the assessment criteria and whether they are slanted in
75 powerslide: I'd say we have a mainly expeditionary fleet that is capable of filling the role of NORAD. Until we remove ourselves from NATO or the UN we will alwa
76 BigJKU: You don't? I think the writing is already on the wall for Typhoon in particular. The UK will get the F-35B and then most people fully expect them to
77 BigJKU: While undoubtedly true there are a few differences. Most things designed back in the era of the CANDU reactor were not designed to be upgraded. The F
78 tommytoyz: Speaking of software on the F-35: Developing and integrating the more than 24 million lines of software code continues to be of concern. Late software
79 GDB: That's news to us. Typhoon will be in RAF at least until 2030, past that? Some kind of UCAV most likely. I don't see F-35A either, the -C would meet
80 sweair: They can get some nice cheap Gripen NG, its probably good enough for Canada?
81 connies4ever: I can say from experience that CANDU itself was designed to be upgraded (has been and continues to be). Which of course explains why there are so man
82 KiwiRob: Actually that's the main reason why Norwegians are pissed, turns out the govt lied and let the US twist there arm into purchasing F-35, the Norwegian
83 KC135TopBoom: The F-35 is, by far, the most expensive option for any Air Force or Navy to aquire, operate and maintane. There are several more affordable options, i
84 bikerthai: Japan and South Korea can afford their frames. Heck, Japan can afford the F-22 if the US would sell them. Besides. the requirement for Japan and Sout
85 YTZ: No. That is not what I meant. I literally meant when the rest of government gets out of the way. C-17 was under budget and delivered earlier than tar
86 YTZ: To be fair. Canada can afford F-35s if we want. The question is one of opportunity cost. This is why the debate is odd. It's not even necessarily tru
87 BigJKU: I think you are taking what I said a bit out of context. More to the point take an aircraft like the F-4 or even the F-15 where a new weapon meant pl
88 connies4ever: Quite right insofar as F-35 doing Arctic patrols goes. But I see that task as being assigned to UAVs, likely Global Hawk. A small cadre of them ,5 or
89 powerslide: I can count on both hands the amount of days our aircraft spent "patrolling" Northern Canada this year. Flying patrol missions in Northern Canada is
90 BigJKU: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE At least worth considering. GripenNG is developmentally behind the F-35 righ
91 bikerthai: With all the shale oil, Canada can probably afford the F-35 more than the US. And to be fair, I am rooting against Canada buying the F=35 because tha
92 tommytoyz: GAO did compare the F-35 to others using the same assumptions and metrics over the same periods of time. Nobody has every called them stupid. They ar
93 GDB: Agreed, really I was thinking in RAF terms of the Tranche 2 and 3 machines, F-35's, either a probe equipped F-35A or -C could indeed replace the Tran
94 BigJKU: I think for the RAF to stick with Typhoon long term you need to see a big export order win to get the Tranche 3B level improvements fielded. The prob
95 ThePointblank: It also means that conventional aircraft will be even more vulnerable. At least with a stealthy aircraft, it is less detectable until much closer in,
96 tommytoyz: Not necessarily. They're already visible from farther away than most SAMS have range, if flown in line of sight. ANd if radar are looking around with
97 tommytoyz: What nobody is really mentioning is that the F-35 radars themselves may be jammed in the future. After all, the talk is about how well they'll do agai
98 GDB: I'd would question that the F-35B or any version, will be better in BVR, now that the Meteor AAM is getting nearer service, the MoD has also said the
99 BigJKU: Meteor is a fine weapon against an F-15. It is less so against a low-observable target. The excess range is only good if the X-band radar of CAPTOR c
100 Oroka: That is the heavily ignored aspect with the anti-F-35 crowd. The F-35 will pick up more capacity in the years to come just from software upgrades. Th
101 YTZ: The biggest proof that stealth is a characteristic of some value is that even potential adversary aircraft are being designed with it. The Russians an
102 YTZ: This. The problem is that stealth is seen as an offensive ability today. But the reality is that military planners see stealth as enhancing survivabi
103 ThePointblank: Indeed. Against a legacy fighter, a F-35 will have the first look, first shot advantage. Ever since the first pilot took to the sky with a weapon, th
104 tommytoyz: It doesn't have to. The shooting aircraft doesn't even need to have it's own radar turned on. With data links, other radars can do that. Besides this
105 pusserchef: Theres certainly an advantages the RAAF acquiring 24 Super Hornets was; Our Bae127 Hawks (Lead in Fighter Trainer) cockpit was designed for the purpos
106 tommytoyz: The US Navy has not bet the farm on the F-35, as the USAF has. The USAF has not ordered a new fighter in many years, except for LRIP F-35s, and cancel
107 pusserchef: Um Australia is in thought process of alternative measures........ with possibilities of E and F Super Hornets. But what should be kept in mind is th
108 YTZ: @ThePointBlank This still comes down to capability desired. Yes, the F-35 will be less vulnerable going forward. But do we need that capability when i
109 Revelation: Despite all the interesting and lengthy posts, that's a question that no one seems to want to take on, perhaps because the answer would mean no kewl
110 Ozair: From here, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...sted-at-45802000000-in-new-report/ "Government sources are at pains to point out that the F-35 is s
111 EagleBoy: y So in your view the F-35 will be replacing the Gripen and Typhoon in all the European fleets? And apparently F-35 parts will be readily to hand in m
112 faro: Very well put...not to mention that we are talking about 65 frames, a very high figure in cost terms but a very low one from an operational point of
113 Powerslide: What are you talking about? Current European Gripen operators aren't interested in the F35 any way. Parts will be available in Europe through partner
114 faro: It may interest you to know that I am a Canadian national having lived in Montreal for 8 years in the seventies. I was also a Canadian Air Cadet in t
115 BigJKU: It seems that way, but it really is not. This is just a continuation of trends that have been going on forever combined with a long period of relativ