Its all just friendly banter. The program I work on is an LM-Boeing program.
The F-22 has gladly taken that role over for the most part.
The F-22 has gladly taken that role over for the most part.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As long as the F-35 can keep up the tradition of showing the door to those Bears trying to get cute.
View attachment 649596
The F-22 has gladly taken that role over for the most part.
Maybe they wanted pictures of an F-22?Note the tail gun positions in the previous two bear photos
I'm sure they did!Maybe they wanted pictures of an F-22?
P-39 ?According to world GDP lists, you guys have a bigger economy than us. Maybe money is not the issue, I suspect it has more to do with the P word as already mentioned.
Good! Boeing killing Bombardier, Canada's only aerospace manufacturer, with their short sighted attempt at blocking the (now) A220 out of US markets and then having the audacity to try and sell them -18's deserved a BIG thumbs down. The -18 is done. It would've been very stupid to invest in a platform that's already near the end of upgrades that try and keep it relevant. Never mind the quality control and design issues Boeing has succumbed to in an effort to place profits over quality and safety. This, on top of cheating to get "awarded" the KC-46 deal, resulting in a tanker that's still not able to operate as requested, Boieng gets what they deserve.
URLunfurl="true"]https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-fighter-jets-1.6262851[/URL]
That would be the optimum choice if Canada can afford it. Both aircraft have multi-role capabilities but I would lean more using the F/A-18 in an air-to-air role and use the F-35 for what it was intended for - a strike aircraft.
I think the only advantage in keeping the -18 would be as additional missile trucks to be coordinated by the F-35's superior sensors. I think the F-35 could out perform an -18 more often than not. The -18 was never considered a pure dog fighter, unlike the -16, -15 and -22. As they say, you've already screwed up if you're in a dogfight anyway.That would be the optimum choice if Canada can afford it. Both aircraft have multi-role capabilities but I would lean more using the F/A-18 in an air-to-air role and use the F-35 for what it was intended for - a strike aircraft.
Maybe the legacy Hornets currently being flown by Canada, not the Superhornet. Additionally the F-35 was defined to be a strike aircraft, ironically both LMCO marketing and even some of its opponents have tried to push it as a dedicated air to air combat aircraft.I think the only advantage in keeping the -18 would be as additional missile trucks to be coordinated by the F-35's superior sensors. I think the F-35 could out perform an -18 more often than not. The -18 was never considered a pure dog fighter, unlike the -16, -15 and -22. As they say, you've already screwed up if you're in a dogfight anyway.
I wish I can give you bacon as well!!!!Why not? Could work.
View attachment 649805
Why not? Could work.
View attachment 649805