Canadian review will recommend buying Lockheed F-35 fighter jet - sources

"The decision must still be finalized by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet."

Can you say "rubber stamp?"

More and more I'm convinced we are being governed by idiots.

I don't really know why they wasted all this time (and extra money) for this DP show?

The way the RFP is written, only one aircraft presented actually fits all of the requirements...regardless of whether those requirements fit Canada's needs.

I hear we're about to have a lot of idle A-10s; you should buy those instead.

As nice as the A-10 is, we need a multi-role aircraft (fighter/interceptor and some bombing capability ideally) - the A-10 is only a strike aircraft.

Buy the A-10 and the Dassault Rafale; cheaper and Quebec will be happy.

Competing aircraft: Dessault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, JAS-39 Gripen, Super Hornet. I would add India's HAL Tejas. All are less expensive. The F-35, Gripen, and Tejas all have the problem they have a single engine. Rafale and Typhoon have best air superiority performance. If you want something that can out dog-fight a MiG-35 or Su-39, then Typhoon. If you want something with a large bomb load, then Rafale. Super Hornet can carry a large load, but older technology. Gripen is designed for Sweden, so designed for winter cold as deep as Canada, and a generation newer than Hornet or Super Hornet, but can't out dog fight a MiG-35 or Su-39, smaller weapons load, and again single engine. Tejas is new, about as good in a dog fight as Gripen, from India so not designed for cold, small, but damn cheap.

Of course my preference is just upgrade our existing CF-18 Hornets. Upgrade electronics to equal the latest Super Hornet.

The problem is, with Canada's batting record we are probably going to spent the most money allowable for the most unsuitable aircraft then spend millions more trying to upgrade it to bring it somewhere near what the Air Force really needs......go figure eh.....

Why they would discontinue the A10? It's proven it's worth many times over but if a country could use them maybe Ukraine though the time it would take to train pilots would probably take to long.

That might work I suppose - at least the Rafale is twin-engine, unlike the F-35.

Why they would discontinue the A10? It's proven it's worth many times over but if a country could use them maybe Ukraine though the time it would take to train pilots would probably take to long.

Because it's main mission - destroying vast numbers of tanks and AFVs - is not likely to happen in this day and age.

Why they would discontinue the A10? It's proven it's worth many times over but if a country could use them maybe Ukraine though the time it would take to train pilots would probably take to long.

Because it's main mission - destroying vast numbers of tanks and AFVs - is not likely to happen in this day and age.

And drones are cheaper.

I hope Putin knows that.

American corporations that manufacture arms want the US military to replace everything. That means the military has to re-purchase everything, from them. Billions of dollars. That's what it's about: billions of dollars. Their argument is the A-10 is "old" so has to be replaced. So replace a proven aircraft that cost $11.8 million each with one that costs US$124.8 million each (the 'A' variant). That's how corporate executives see it: price.

In combat, the A-10 is highly effective against tanks or armoured personnel carriers. It's extremely tough, durable, effective. It does have a vulnerability: surface-to-air missiles. Both AA installations and shoulder launched. The A-10 had trouble with that during the last Iraq war. So the Air Force started using F-16 fighters using surface-to-ground missiles instead. Missiles are far more expensive than bullets, but an F-16 can fly high and fast, staying clear of shoulder launched missiles. Corporate executives from the manufacturers claim the F-35 is the replacement for the F-16, so they argue to replace the A-10 as well. The F-35 is supposed to have stealth, so it can hide from radar, hiding from guidance systems for missiles. But the problem is stealth for an F-35 isn't all that good. So you may as well use an F-16.

The first mission of any stealth fighter is to take out anti-aircraft defences. The American missile to do that is a HARM missile. It homes in on radar. It's guidance system can even remember where radar was, so if the enemy turns off their radar, the HARM missile will continue to where it was. The problem is a HARM missile is too long to fit in the internal bomb bay of an F-35. You can sling it under a wing, but then the missile becomes a big radar reflector, defeating any stealth. If you're going to do that, you may as well use an F-16, F-15, or CF-18. The F-22 Raptor can carry a pair of HARM missiles internally, but America won't sell any outside the US, not even to Canada.

The problem with use of an A-10 in Ukraine, is its ammunition. It was built around its primary weapon: GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling cannon. That has 7 barrels which shoot 30mm rounds, with depleted uranium core. That requires any country operating them to either buy depleted uranium ammunition, or actively enrich uranium so they can use the left-over uranium for these bullets. I don't think we want Ukraine enriching uranium.

Different airplane, it's not just an electronics upgrade.