Long retired RCAF CF104 from RCAF #439 Sabre Tooth Tiger Squadron, as was painted for a NATO “Tiger Meet” ( now at CWHM preserved)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]232903[/ATTACH]

And a more recent NATO “Tiger Meet” participant, RCAF CF 188 #720 at CFB Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada ( for the 2003 Tiger Meet of the Americas)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]232904[/ATTACH]

Probably the same way that 70 odd CF-188’s meet the requirements.

We started out with over 120 CF 188’s……and in all honesty, the 70 odd ones we are flying currently are placing such a huge strain on the system it is hard to maintain…

we have aircraft deployed in two locations, and they need to be maintained, three squadrons in Canada….including training, air policing / defense and those down…..
the idea was to REDUCE the strain…not add to it with FEWER, harder to maintain aircraft…..as has been bashed about on here…..in all honesty Canada would likely do better with either the Super Hornet ( ease of Pilot conversion, maintence conversion lessened etc..better able to handle extreme weather conditions) and be able to purchase more of them and operate a a lower cost……

But I digress,

I only wanted to set the records straight regarding “Canada’s type of comparison”……which again is NONE

The Canadian process so far has not been bull****.

It has been moose****.

As is any process that fails to take major cost differences (and consequently major differences in force size) into account. However, most of the processes that have been used by different nations over the years to validate their choice of JSF have failed to account for cost, particularly on the operating side. The problem is that competitors can provide guarantees based on actual deliveries and operations (even Saab can extrapolate since the airframe and systems are similar to C/D and the engine cost is known) while JSF provides promises and projections.

To be honest there has been NO CANADIAN PROCESS at all……..and THAT is why Canada has FROZEN all decisions, activities, everything regarding the F35….what happened was that the RCAF High Brass and the DoD High Brass essentially LIED to the Government…there was NO open competition nothing…TWO Governments ago, they sunk us into this “Pay to play”…”partnership” crap…..that Government got booted out, the new one came in and was full of lies , non disclosure, deliberate avoidance of Government DEMANDED information, completely fabricated purchase / operating costs, needs assessments where NEVER done….absolutely NO consideration as to how 65 planes could possibly do all that was likely going to be asked of them, counting Air policing/Defence, Overseas deployments and aircraft down for maintenence / training etc…..

As of this year…the Government has frozen everything…there will be NO decisions , anouncements anything…..and likely will end up with demanded Open Competitions, re assessments, completely new purchase proceedures etc….

SO no anyone using Canada as a comparison for purchasing the F35, is NOT doing themselves or anyone else favours…..

as was said…complete MOOSE SHi%T……..and has resulted in alot of political and military misstrust and public opinion is firmly swayed to stand with getting rid of the whole scandal….

BUT only time will tell…..keep an eye out over the next two years

OK, so the soccer analogy was bad…

However, does anyone really discount that the CURRENT Brazilian Carrier, the Sao Paulo, is a floating museum piece?…..that even after 5 years of “upgrades” it caught fire and suffered serious damage which to this date still isn;t fixed, and nor is the Carrier sea worthy…thats all correct isn;t it?….

So my point still stands, IF Brazil cannot look after , fix etc their current Carrier, why build a new one…the carrier abilities that Brazil maintains is slender at best, and their annual “sharing” the flight deck with Argentina so they can maintain Carrier qualified pilots is beyond rediculous….where are they “force projecting”…are they going to sail around South America intimidating other nations?….with the development of Carrier killing Anti Ship missiles, WHY would anyone think this was a good idea?…..unless they are the USA or UK with the arsenal of weapons and systems to defend it?……

as I said, many websites are full of propaganda and political “wants”..and Brazil is certainly NOT different….what is the actual chances that Brazil is going to spend the billions to build a new Carrier?….it’s not like Brazil isn;’t in need of cash expendatures in other facets of the Nation…like nullifying starvation and the extensive slums…Brazil has extreme dynamics when it comes to the “haves and havenots”….can the costs be afforded and sustained?

As for their expected Nuclear sub?….POSSIBLY by 2023…thats certainly a few years away…..they also have 4 French Scorpione class subs ordered too, the same as the Chilean Navy got…( South American “keepin up with the Joneses” )

Right now, Brazil enjoys playing “Big Boy on the block” in Central and South America…and they do it well…they are larger and more capable than any other Nation or even handful of Nation there…..their political / economic ties with BRICs may or may not play well for them…only time will tell

I am NOT basing my thoughts along biased or biggoted lines, IF some website in Canada, even the DND one suddenly started saying that Canada was to start building a New Aircraft Carrier I would likewise say…WHY?….Canada doesn;t “Force Project”, nor is it nessessarily a good “tool” for national Defense…so why would Canada waste the money on something unneeded?…..

Bottom line Brazil bought the Carrier it has now from France, in a time ( the extreme tail end of it though) when many Navies around the world had Carriers due to the numbers of them surplussed after WW2…….logic and reason prevailed and the majority of Nations saw no reasonable need for them vs. the costs and maintenance etc. and decommissioned them……Brazil and at the time Argentina did not…they kept theirs on…….as a result, they have kept a barely needed or required “capability” shearly out of backward thinking…..is it needed now?…NO do they need a new one?…NO is it a flashy figure head “flag ship for the Navy?….sure….but still of little to no strategic use….and that is my point……

The FA-50 is NOT a Korean version of the F-16. It’s smaller in every dimension & lighter.

What is the relevance of ‘a twin engined airframe’? The single engine of the T-50/FA-50 gives almost as much thrust as the two engines of the F-CK-1, & is slightly lighter.

Slower? What do you think are the top speeds of the two aircraft?

The UPGRADED CK-1 C/D version apparently has a top speed of Mach 1.8 to MACH 2 ( depending on info sources) and a ceiling of 55 – 58,000 ft…. . where the FA – 50 is at MACH 1.5 and has a ceiling of 48,000 ft….and YES I actually did look at numerous sites on the CK- 1 and almost unilaterally they had the same info…….

As I said…the term PROTOTYPE , means before manufacture…..therefore, in my obvious confusion and not being an absolute expert on the situation, including the Taiwanese languistic origins…….I , using my ENGLISH, assumed that the PROTOTYPE was for a NEW designed plane as again, it CLEARLY said that it was announced at the Presidents visit to the plant that it was no longer the “Ching Kuo” but was NOW the “Hsiung Ying, Chan or Sheng”….

Anyway, as I said…you win….it’s not available, it;s NOT better than the FA – 50……..it’s no use at all……it’s from Taiwan, so it is out of the relm of consideration in a TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL, “what if” thread, got it……

and as I said now THREE times, there was also mention of a further development ( at some point in discussion at least ) that there was considered an “Advanced Defense Fighter” to stem from the program…..

anyway…I couldn;t care less……as I have already bowed out and accepted that is not available and not made any longer…..why is it being flogged on?….

seriously, was it that far a reach to consider when there are references to aircraft being “acquired” that aren;t selling them, and that Argentina has the resources to BUY anything at all…….. or care about anything but infighting and bickering between the Upper Brass……

Just carry on……I’m done

The two “prototypes” were existing Ching Kuo´s airframes from the ROCAF, which were upgraded in 2006. The last Ching Kuo was rolled out in 1999. Its not on production, AIDC is not offering it commercialy, the ROCAF will not sell its airframes, its not an option, the end.
The South Korean FA-50 offers identical performance and is being built today.

Cheers

The FA – 50 does NOT offer “identical performance”…..it is NOT a twin engined airframe, it is slower than the CK-1 , yes it is being built today….it is a Korean version of the F16……and to be quite honest I don;t think they did as good a job at it as the CK-1

It’s all good…..all done and over with, too bad, seemed like it could have had possabilities…

in reality this entire thread is “NOT AN OPTION”…because Argentina will do what they always do, stick their head in the sand and drag along, not changing anything, including grandeous ideas of having a “Naval Air Arm”, yet they do NOT have nor have they had a Carrier since 1997, when their then 55 year old ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was scrapped….and even then it had been inoperable since 1990…..YET the Argentinians still plug along and play “Puddle pilots” by using the Brazilian relic that is dock bound and due to be gone as well….this is a waste of resources and capabilities, along with the Army maintaining any flying….bottom line, Argentinian military is to small to keep three competing “airforces” going…nor should it…..but infighting, interservice issues and a general decline in care for the whole of the Military is doomed it to fall apart…..

SO, despite what “internet posters” myself included, say is of little to no consequence….I mean one could just as easily say buy EF Typhoon II’s…..we KNOW it won;t happen, but it is as valid as any other idea…..pure fantasy and of absolutely no bearing…..

so lets continue to play “what if”……because reality is pretty lame and boring…..and the actual abilities of the Argentinian Air Force is certainly not substantial…

sad to see,

but WOW, that was some poor reporting in the article……

WHY, would Brazil spend time or effort in getting a fictional Carrier capable version when their Carrier is a dock queen, not in service due to fire damage after they “upgraded” it’s 50 some odd year old systems….

Sorry, the Carrier will not be around for long….it’s obsolete decades ago and has no purpose as Brazil really doesn;t need Power Projection….as Argentina has NO Carrier and “maintain” Carrier planes and “qualified” pilots in an obscure holding on to past abilities that will NEVER have a resergence as they will NEVER have a carrier again…….what is the point?……development would be pointless and a severe waste of money and resources….

and Brazil will NOT be buying F35 B’s, they are NOT exactly on the list of favoured “trusted” allies…….and are simply far, far beyond what they need in ANY foreseeable situation…..buying to meet realistic scenarios makes sense, buying way, way beyond is fool hearty and economically a major waste….