[4Canada]

N Say,<br /> <br /> The look on my face would be part of the answer and there are none of the Walmart faces here that would work for me on this. But as I made the puzzled/credulous look I'd probably say "Well they bloody well should, they'd be crazy not to protect their assets!"

[Dr Caleb]

I'd agree 100%. And it's their own fault for stifiling our fighter program at it's outset. And the fault of our own government for not having a spine.<br />

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] I'd agree 100%. And it's their own fault for stifiling our fighter program at it's outset. And the fault of our own government for not having a spine.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> But how would giving that business to Canada help America? According to Palmiro Campagna they got much of our technology anyway.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> But how would giving that business to Canada help America? According to Palmiro Campagna they got much of our technology anyway.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Our ability to build and sell a world class fighter jet, and military spinoffs, would have brought in taxes and business that would have kept the costs down for us. We wouldn't have to buy US made (stripped down econobox) F-18's and land based armour.<br /> <br /> The same can be said of much of our economy. We supply raw materials, not finished products.<br />

[Jesse]

I tell them that the only current military threat to Canada is the USA. If that doesn't work, I bring up the war of 1812 and how the US is the only country to have ever invaded canadian soil.

[lesouris]

[QUOTE BY= jvanherk] I tell them that the only current military threat to Canada is the USA. If that doesn't work, I bring up the war of 1812 and how the US is the only country to have ever invaded canadian soil. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Well, unless you don't count the Athabascan invasion of Western Canada thousands of years ago, the Inuit invasion of the North also thousands of years ago, the European invasion of Canada a few hundred years ago, and the British invasion of Acadia and Quebec also a few hundred years ago. The US though, also tried invading Canada (or "liberating" us - sound familiar) in the American Revolution and the Oregon Boundry Dispute (remember "fifty-four forty or fight!" - we would have gone to war again had not the US been busy with Mexico).

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> But how would giving that business to Canada help America? According to Palmiro Campagna they got much of our technology anyway.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Our ability to build and sell a world class fighter jet, and military spinoffs, would have brought in taxes and business that would have kept the costs down for us. We wouldn't have to buy US made (stripped down econobox) F-18's and land based armour.<br /> <br /> The same can be said of much of our economy. We supply raw materials, not finished products.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey Doc. I think I misunderstood you. I was asking how it would have helped the U.S. to not bug us to scrap the Arrow, because I misundertood you when you said "It was <b>their</b> fault they stopped our fighter program" I though you were saying it was the U.S.'s fault and our government's fault....now I'm confused, but I've talked with many different people about how high-tech Avro was, and how its spinoff potential was amazing, and employed 300,000 people when our population was only 12 million people.<br /> <br /> In the "Storms of Controversy," Palmiro Campagna argues quite well that the U.S. was trying to see what we could do, and was trying to take the technology. Apparently they did the same thing to Israel, except they actually were paying for the Isreali plane.<br /> <br /> So the F-18As stripped down? And we're paying an arm and a leg to upgrade them, instead of building our own and buying hte JSF now. God I love our government. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'>

[Guest]

Terhan, is the correct answer!<br /> <br /> Dennis Baker<br /> <br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> Hey Doc. I think I misunderstood you. I was asking how it would have helped the U.S. to not bug us to scrap the Arrow, because I misundertood you when you said "It was <b>their</b> fault they stopped our fighter program" I though you were saying it was the U.S.'s fault and our government's fault....now I'm confused, but I've talked with many different people about how high-tech Avro was, and how its spinoff potential was amazing, and employed 300,000 people when our population was only 12 million people.<br /> <br /> So the F-18As stripped down? And we're paying an arm and a leg to upgrade them, instead of building our own and buying hte JSF now. God I love our government. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Sorry man. Should have used proper nouns instead of pronouns. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'><br /> <br /> I think that the whole Arrow business is the reason we have no high-tech industry now. It's our government's fault that we have to pay too much for poor equipment, and it's the US fault they have to protect us. The US did steal all the best Canadian engineers and use them in NASA and the defence industry.<br /> <br /> Yea, the CF18 is the econobox version of the F18. There are many control, guidance and weapons systems it cannot use because much of the electronics systems are missing from the CF-18.<br /> <br /> I think we should buy the Eurofighter, not the JSF. The Eurofighter is the only competition to the F-22 (if they can get the F-22 working).

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> Hey Doc. I think I misunderstood you. I was asking how it would have helped the U.S. to not bug us to scrap the Arrow, because I misundertood you when you said "It was <b>their</b> fault they stopped our fighter program" I though you were saying it was the U.S.'s fault and our government's fault....now I'm confused, but I've talked with many different people about how high-tech Avro was, and how its spinoff potential was amazing, and employed 300,000 people when our population was only 12 million people.<br /> <br /> So the F-18As stripped down? And we're paying an arm and a leg to upgrade them, instead of building our own and buying hte JSF now. God I love our government. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Sorry man. Should have used proper nouns instead of pronouns. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'><br /> <br /> I think that the whole Arrow business is the reason we have no high-tech industry now. It's our government's fault that we have to pay too much for poor equipment, and it's the US fault they have to protect us. The US did steal all the best Canadian engineers and use them in NASA and the defence industry.<br /> <br /> Yea, the CF18 is the econobox version of the F18. There are many control, guidance and weapons systems it cannot use because much of the electronics systems are missing from the CF-18.<br /> <br /> I think we should buy the Eurofighter, not the JSF. The Eurofighter is the only competition to the F-22 (if they can get the F-22 working). [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Great points. You can understand why the U.S. would want our engineers.....I have heard that the U.S. won't sell all of their technology to foreign countries that they sell to, so this confirms it.<br /> <br /> I wish we'd do our own thing again some say, but we could build Eurofighters under license and modify them I guess.<br /> <br /> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Typhoon is also a better ground atack fighter than the F-22.<br /> <br /> I was interested in reading that the Russians developed the Mig-35 to compete with hte F-22 but couldn't afford it:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mfi.htm">here</a><br /> <br /> <br /> It's also nice to see other countries are building their own fighters too:<br /> <br /> I'd rather have the Typhoon as well but I think the Rafale<br /> <a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/rafale.htm">here</a> and the Saab Gripen<br /> <a href="http://www.gripen.com/index.html">here</a> are also pretty cool.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> I wish we'd do our own thing again some say, but we could build Eurofighters under license and modify them I guess.<br /> <br /> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Typhoon is also a better ground atack fighter than the F-22.<br /> <br /> I was interested in reading that the Russians developed the Mig-35 to compete with hte F-22 but couldn't afford it:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mfi.htm">here</a><br /> <br /> <br /> It's also nice to see other countries are building their own fighters too:<br /> <br /> I'd rather have the Typhoon as well but I think the Rafale<br /> <a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/rafale.htm">here</a> and the Saab Gripen<br /> <a href="http://www.gripen.com/index.html">here</a> are also pretty cool.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> From what I've read the Thypoon/Eurofighter and F-22 are air superiority fighters, not capable of ground attack. I like the Eurofighter because it can perform Mach1+ turns without ripping the wings off, and has a lower stall speed than the F-22. 2 rules of air combat, higher speed turns, and slower aircraft will always win a dogfight <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> Both use fast cruise technology, speed of sound without afterburners - better range, less fuel.<br /> <br /> The Gripen looks pretty cool as a ground attack fighter.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> I wish we'd do our own thing again some say, but we could build Eurofighters under license and modify them I guess.<br /> <br /> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Typhoon is also a better ground atack fighter than the F-22.<br /> <br /> I was interested in reading that the Russians developed the Mig-35 to compete with hte F-22 but couldn't afford it:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mfi.htm">here</a><br /> <br /> <br /> It's also nice to see other countries are building their own fighters too:<br /> <br /> I'd rather have the Typhoon as well but I think the Rafale<br /> <a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/rafale.htm">here</a> and the Saab Gripen<br /> <a href="http://www.gripen.com/index.html">here</a> are also pretty cool.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> From what I've read the Thypoon/Eurofighter and F-22 are air superiority fighters, not capable of ground attack. I like the Eurofighter because it can perform Mach1+ turns without ripping the wings off, and has a lower stall speed than the F-22. 2 rules of air combat, higher speed turns, and slower aircraft will always win a dogfight <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> Both use fast cruise technology, speed of sound without afterburners - better range, less fuel.<br /> <br /> The Gripen looks pretty cool as a ground attack fighter.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Interesting. I had heard the makers of the Typhoon claim it was also capable of ground attack, but it mihgt have been an exaggeration on their part.<br /> <br /> ...so what makes a good ground attack aircraft?

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> <br /> Interesting. I had heard the makers of the Typhoon claim it was also capable of ground attack, but it mihgt have been an exaggeration on their part.<br /> <br /> ...so what makes a good ground attack aircraft?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I stand corrected. <a href='http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/eurofighter.htm'>Link</a><p><br /> The Eurofighter appears to be cabable of ground attack as well.<br /> <br /> A good ground attack fighter has different flight characteristics, as well as being able to actually fire ground attack weapons or deploy bombs. The F-22 has an internal weapons bay for purposes of stealth, which limits its payload capacity and the weapons it can fire. Aircraft like the F-16C/F Or F16A-F had strong wings, and external and underbelly mounts, so it could carry anything from an AGM to a 1000 pound gravity bomb.<br /> <br /> The aircraft also needs the ability to perform certain flying manouvers to deploy certain bomb drops. 'Tossing' or 'lofting' a bomb is flying level, then climbing. When the plane reaches the apogee, it releases the bomb and turns. The bomb continues to climb in an arc, then decends on it's target. There is also diving on the target, releasing the bomb, then pulling up. Sorry, couldn't find pictures.<br /> <br /> Some planes just aren't capable of this.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> <br /> Interesting. I had heard the makers of the Typhoon claim it was also capable of ground attack, but it mihgt have been an exaggeration on their part.<br /> <br /> ...so what makes a good ground attack aircraft?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I stand corrected. <a href='http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/eurofighter.htm'>Link</a><p><br /> The Eurofighter appears to be cabable of ground attack as well.<br /> <br /> A good ground attack fighter has different flight characteristics, as well as being able to actually fire ground attack weapons or deploy bombs. The F-22 has an internal weapons bay for purposes of stealth, which limits its payload capacity and the weapons it can fire. Aircraft like the F-16C/F Or F16A-F had strong wings, and external and underbelly mounts, so it could carry anything from an AGM to a 1000 pound gravity bomb.<br /> <br /> The aircraft also needs the ability to perform certain flying manouvers to deploy certain bomb drops. 'Tossing' or 'lofting' a bomb is flying level, then climbing. When the plane reaches the apogee, it releases the bomb and turns. The bomb continues to climb in an arc, then decends on it's target. There is also diving on the target, releasing the bomb, then pulling up. Sorry, couldn't find pictures.<br /> <br /> Some planes just aren't capable of this.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Interesting.....I suppose our defence-sharing agreement is why we keep joining only U.S. projects, but why would we be putting more money into the old F-18? It would've been almost as cheap to buy new planes..? Or we could've bought the JSF earlier....<br /> <br /> It's interesting to note how few true interceptors there are after the Arrow was canned, eh?<br /> <br /> also, I'll try and find the link, but in the Globe and Mail today, a bit of news regarding the new priorities for the CF came out, and it sounds like the army is the winner if there is a winner....<br /> <br />