What was once true in the '80s might not be true any more. For instance, the USN would never accept a carrier plane with intakes underneath the fuselage any more.
The intakes have nothing to do with anything and the Navy already accepted the F-35 and the F-18 above so I don't know how any of that is even relevant even if it was true and the picture above shows that it is not.
For every strike mission that Canada has flown in the last 20 years, it has probably flown a thousand patrol sorties. The importance of these use cases aren't comparable.
the strike missions are where the combat takes place, so I would agree they are not comparable to peacetime sorties in the far north. what's the point of buying an aircraft that can fly patrols but can't survive in the kind of war that Canada has engaged in the last 30 years?
speaking of the 1000 to 1 sortie Ratio, this is again putting the stress on NORAD compatibility above all else and the USAF doesn't fly F-18s of any type.
as I said in the last post. There is a giant gap between what people think Canada needs, versus how Canada actually operates. in 1999 CF-18s did not have the latest encryption technology for the NATO bombing campaign and were almost sent home because of it.
Strike missions may be the miniority of flying, but it is also the most critical and the entire reason the aircraft exist--war.
warplanes are built to perform in combat, not for peacetime efficiency
This is like an ejection seat and parachute. Thousands of sorties can be flown without ever needing the ejection seat and parachute, but when they are needed in that very slim amount of times it is vital that they work.
I agree that the F-35 is going to be Canada's choice in the future, but that's not because the F-35 is particularly suitable.
The F-35 is not only the most suitable by Canada's own metrics, but the fact that Canada is a JSF partner also means that is is the only aircraft avaliable that has had direct canadian involvement in its development.
I know that natural rebuttal to this will be "Well not much involvement" or "not enough involvement!" but the fact remains it is the only available option with direct canadian input. We can debate about how much or how little, but there is nothing else. not Rafale, not F-15, not F-18 not KF-21.
in keeping with the above we hear again and again that Canada despite having requirements that only F-35 meets, despite being F-35 partners, despite having input on the actual F-35 development, that the F-35 is still not a good fit, and they would be better off with something they had no say in with development, won't work as well with partners and alliances, and does not meet requirements or fulfill the same amount of industrial participation.
It's because there just aren't many good alternatives. Maybe if the KF-21 and Kaan were viable choices they'd get a look, but these planes won't be available any time soon.
There are no real alternatives at all actually. Which is kind of the point. Its as if someone bet Canada "try and find something better than the F-35" and Canada said "i'll take that Bet!" and here we are decades and unnecessary billions later, multiple evaluations and an entire competition, even an attempted alternative buy of the Super Hornet and the F-35 always comes up as the most suitable. every time. This is why Canada is so useful as a study. its as if they did everything they could to alter reality, and yet had to keep returning to it despite politics and an attempted to create an alternative world.
Why is there such confusion? because most people don't understand what the requirements are and what the RCAF actually does. if they did this would all be academic.
we have people asking "why does canada need a strike aircraft?" apparently unaware that most Canadian combat has been strike missions.
if people can't tell the difference between a screw driver and a hammer There is always going to be conflicted opinions. the RCAF is going one way based on its knowledge and experience, the public the other based on its ignorance and lack of experience.
One way to change the question would go as follows "The F-35 is the most suitable to Canada currently. But are the requirements and suitability
faulty?"
one of the more awkward things that came up with the latest competition, was that the F-35 was the only aircraft that met the requirements, which meant Canada had to actually LOWER the standards and requirements for anyone to even compete. Its not a good sign when requirements have to be lowered for anyone to compete with the F-35 in Canada. That tells the truth right there. Everything had to relaxed: compatibility, radar signature etc. Even then the final competitors were both single engine aircraft, and the Gripen E is hardly a long ranged interceptor...
