The guy doing all the flips is the SU-37 showing us how good it can maneuver. The other guy is the F-35 watching from 50 miles away and putting a missile up his ass when the time is right.

Canadian Navy moves forward on new supply ships

By BRYN WEESE
Parliamentary Bureau

Last Updated: July 14, 2010 5:59pm

OTTAWA -- The feds are promising -- again -- to build new support ships for
$2.6 billion that will help the Navy stay out at sea longer.

The vessels -- a one-stop sea shop for ships and helicopters -- supply fuel,
ammunition, spare parts and repairs, food, water, and medical facilities.

Three federal ministers made the announcement in Halifax Wednesday.

While the two shipyards that will build the vessels have not been chosen,
Defence Minister Peter MacKay promised the ships will be built in Canada.

The support ships are part of the government's $35 billion plan to build 28
large vessels and 100 smaller ships for the Navy and Coast Guard over the
next 30 years.

"We're making a long-term commitment to building our new fleets at home in
Canadian shipyards," MacKay said. "This is going to be a boom time for
shipbuilding throughout Atlantic Canada and throughout the country."

The designs are expected in about two years, but it isn't known when they'll
hit the water.

In 2008, the Conservatives scrapped a plan to build three new supply ships
for $2.9 billion when contractors were unable to meet the requirements for
the government's low price.

In 2007, the government pledged to build six to eight Arctic patrol ships
for $3.1 billion, the first of which could arrive by 2014.

In 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced plans for a new flagship
icebreaker, the Diefenbaker, for $720 million. That massive 140-metre-long,
made-in-Canada icebreaker will be able to break through nearly three metres
of ice and be ready by 2017.

and what does a clip of the movie never back down have to do with it?

The debate should not be centered around whether or not Canada needs new fighter aircraft. We do, and anyone with half a brain realizes that.

1) Canada has international commitments, including NATO, that require we maintain & be able to contribute modern military equipment as-needed. Total inability to provide resources and support for an organization like NATO can have consequences, even if they may not be immediate.

2) Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world, geographically, and the fighter jet is the only vehicle that can defend remote portions of the country.

3) Canada's possessions in the high arctic are becoming increasingly valuable every year. Maintaining sovereignty through conventional means is nearly impossible given the inaccessibility, vast distances, and inhospitable conditions.

(On that note, Canada's arctic sovereignty concerns are unknown to the vast majority of the Canadian public. It is a very real issue that has the potential to become serious in a very short time frame. The shipping lanes and undersea oil deposits are both extremely volatile issues.)

4) The fighter jet is an incredible powerful weapon that, despite its costs, represents the most versatile, usable and cost-effective war machine available.

5) Image is important. Canada, like any prosperous freedom-loving country, must maintain a reasonably modern and capable military in order to deter attack (however unlikely) and to secure & maintain international alliances.

6) The fighter jet is a politically viable way of engaging in combat. Because the casualty rates are very low, there is generally high levels of support for military missions that involve only fighter aircraft. Pilots usually come home in a uniform and not a body bag, and thus people are willing to support their use in combat more readily.

7) The fighter jet is not simply a tool for dropping bombs and fighting other aircraft. One of it's most important functions is to escort. Many medium and large scale combat engagements (naval, infantry, etc) require air support.

As a much more dramatic example, say a war erupted between Israel and Iran. Canada might need to remove citizens and dignitaries from harm's way, and the civilian transport aircraft would require protection from surface-to-air missiles and hostile aircraft.

Canada absolutely needs new fighter aircraft. Frankly, we need to maintain modern fighter jets more than we need to maintain any other aspect of our defense forces. If you need to cut spending, the most powerful and versatile combat weapon you've got should be the last option and not the first.

A more debatable topic is the suitability of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter, but even then, the alternatives aren't particularly appealing.

I'm not very well versed in modern military aircraft specs & capabilities, but I know that Canada's needs call for a specific type of aircraft. Our budget demands a multi-role fighter jet that is capable in any situation. It must have good range and speed. Payload capacity, air-to-air combat abilities, and stealth characteristics are less important (although certainly still very desirable).

Since the current CF-18's are still usable and have recently been refitted, there's no urgency to replace them. That's why the F-18 Super Hornet wasn't Canada's first choice, as it is not a "fifth-generation aircraft" and thus it is more of a short-term solution. Australia ordered 24 Super Hornets, yes, but my understanding is that they desperately needed to replace aging F-16's. Canada's CF-18's are old, but they're not obsolete yet.

The story is similar with the Saab 39 Gripen and Dassault Rafale. They're simply not modern enough to be considered for a long-term replacement, which is what Canada requires. The Eurofighter Typhoon - perhaps the best active "4.5 generation" fighter aircraft - could certainly be considered. It is more advanced than the Dassault and Saab, and looks more poised to be a long-term option. Still, it is already a decade old, and despite planned upgrades it will have been in service for nearly 15 years by the time Canada is replacing it's CF-18's. Additionally, although it is used by many European allies, it is very different in design from the American-made Lockheed F-22 and Boeing F-18 which makes interoperability a concern.

The Russian and Chinese built aircraft (PAK FA and J-XX respectively), however capable, are simply not an option. They may be quality aircraft, but you don't buy $10 billion worth of aircraft from potentially hostile nations. Especially not when all your allies are using completely different aircraft. How do you update and retrofit your fighter jet fleet if the country that manufactured them becomes hostile and refuses its support?

What's left? The F-35. It has it's drawbacks, too: single engine design, questionable air-to-air capabilities, high cost, etc. But it's still the only Western fifth generation fighter jet available, and will likely have the longest service life. It will also be the most advanced aircraft aside from the F-22, and for the most part it meets Canada's multi-role needs.

Hopefully, the criticisms and concerns over the F-35's performance will be addressed in the next seven years. If that does indeed happen, then Canada will possess one of the world's most advanced fighter aircraft and will be able to maintain a cost-effective fleet of capable aircraft for the next 30-40 years.

Funny, I thought it was quite obvious.

The SU37 is very maneuverable and the previous video of it showed some incredible moves other planes aren't capable of performing. The kind of stuff that wows the crowds at airshows.

But it doesn't mean shit cause while the SU37 is dancing around in the sky showing off what it can do an F35 will come along and knock it out.

Off topic a bit, but Gates is worth at least twice as much as the Sultan of Brunei.

Unlike the Sultan, Gates doesn't show off his money as much... no Veyrons, McLaren F1's, etc. (A lot of his money is in the charity foundation endowment fund he created.)

I agree that the video doesn't say much about the plane's overall effectiveness. The SU-37 and now the S-47 aren't really a big issue as Russia seems more focused on the PAK FA, which is more stealth-oriented and appears to be a direct competitor to the F-35.

Air-to-air combat (and specifically maneuvering) aren't a huge concern anymore. In this day and age, true dogfights seem unlikely thanks to long-range BVR missiles, stealth technology, active radar homing, guided surface-to-air missiles, etc.

Don't get me wrong, maneuverability and air-to-air capabilities are both important, but I think Canada is less concerned with dogfights and more concerned with things like versatility, range, stealth, etc.

A modern single engine design is no longer a drawback. Modern jet engines today are extremely reliable compared to their 60's and 70's counterparts. After working with the F404 for the past 5 years I can tell you there is more tech and processing power in my cell phone then that engine.

As far as the F-22, you have to remember that it was designed and built with 90's technology, the F-35 has far superior electronics and radar systems when both were built. When we get the F-35, the F-22 will be a 20 year old design, and besides, the US won't sell them to anyone anyways.

What pisses me off the most is the Liberals and the other idiots complaining about an unfair selection process. What do they want, have a competative bid which may result in the cancellation of the F-35 order? It was them who sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into the program in the first place, its only appropriate that we give our industry and economy the rewards with a F-35 purchase. Parts will be easier to get from the US than lets say Europe if we got the Eurofighter or god forbid, a POS flying Russian tank.

I was reading about the F-35 on wiki and came across this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Li...ia_controversy

and then i found this http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/...pedia-dnd.html
DND computers used to change Wikipedia site

So? You'd think the DND would have the best authority on what the Wikipedia page should say about their equipment.

Wikipedia isn't the place for Jack Leighton's people to post their grievances about the F-35, or to even "criticize" Canada's purchasing of the jets.

For this matter, I could hardly care less about the F-35 purchase or the fact that idiotic behavour occurs on Wikipedia, a site open to editing information by anyone in the public; which, on a side note, is exactly why I searched for a more credible news sorce after reading. As a further sidenote I'm not happy with the timing of the purchase but I believe it is a purchase that had to be made sooner or later.

What concerns me more is how close this appears to be the actions of a government attempting to suppress the free flow of ideas and expression by its public.

If they were deleting blogs and facebook posts, that would be a story worth looking into.

Did anyone read and/or buy the CDR magazine (Canadian Defense Review) Volume 15/Issue 3 Where they went and checked out the F-35? I found it a really good read and helped me appreciate the plane more.

somebody shoots that dumb motherfucker

its the same people bitching about the f-35 plane purchase that will bitch about how incompetent our government is with dealing with situations like the russian bomber testing our borders

I'm happy to hear that our government is starting allocate more money to our military. Having more newer planes will ultimately enable us to rely less on American fighters for air support, who tend to be a little trigger happy and can't seem to differentiate the difference between Canadian soldiers and the "Bad Guys"

the whole arctic sovereignty issue hasn't come into full view yet, but it undoubtedly will. When that day comes, as a citizen of this great nation i truly hope we have the means necessary to defend our interests.

Agreed. Imagine how much worse our military would be right now if the Liberals had been in power these last few years. :S I hope we can get these cyclones going here one day...

I really hope we get some global hawks with ordanance capabilities to help patrol our oceans and borders.