F-35s again

Metasphere: Thank you for the report/comparison.  The SU-35 is an interceptor.  It was designed to attempt to achieve air superiority.  The suitable counter is the F-22.  Less than 200 of these planes were built at a cost of 500b.  Production was halted and unfunded this year.  The F-22 is not sold to ANY other country than the USA.  However, if Canadians are balking at the cost of the F-35 at 134m each, how would it go if the price per plane was 250m each?

Russian planes have always been good on paper.  Their numbers are essential equivalents to the planes of the West.  The SU-35 is rated as a 4.5 generation plane however.  The reason relates to the vastly superior avionics in the F-35.

It is easy for Canadians to default to the view these planes are for arctic interception.  However, I think there was analysis that looked at all the roles we had need of in the past 25 years.  Our F-18s were nice planes.  But air superiority was achieved fairly quickly, and the usefulness dropped as we needed more of an Air-ground role.

Barring some radical turn, Russia's warming relationship with the west may lead to negligible threat from them.  There are states overtly hostile to the west.  God forbid we should need to clash.  The future is best seen in hindsight.
I can tell you in 1977 we could not see that within a decade the Soviet Union would fall.

A military command is charged with looking at as many scenarios as possible, and to prepare the military as best we can to meet them.  At least under the conservative watch, we don't have to stand on a runway with our thumbs up looking for a ride.  A vast improvement.  We are moving in the best direction in my view.

Jablonsa: "Its a rotten deal considering the Americans are paying 132 million per plane while Canadians are being asked to pay 246 million per plane."

Ok considering your are repeating this nonsense, here is the logic:

The projected purchase price of these planes which includes cost over-runs is 134 million.  It actually is less, closer to 95 m a plane.  But the 134 number is used because we wanted to include cost of missals etc, AND we wanted to make sure our cost at this stage was on the high side.
Secondly, opponents have disingenuously added 7 billion dollars to the cost for maintenance for the next 20 years.  Some including this paper buy into it hook-line-and sinker.  While it is outstanding our government is willing to publish total cost of ownership, never has this standard been employed.  It wasn't for our F-18s which just had a maintenance contract approved for 1/2 billion.  Do you really think that 1/2 billion was in the original purchase price?  Give me a break.  So the government tries for transparency, but the partisan shills on this board turn it into a vice instead.

So, this 250m per plane is a crock.  Since no one else is calling you guys on this, I guess I will.