2012-06-09

5 reasons why the RCAF needs Catcopters, not F-35s

Oh, Hai! Is this old bloggy thing still turned on? It is? Cool!

So, it occurs to me* that Catcopters could solve this government's recent problems with, you know, the optics surrounding the whole F-35 stealth fighter purchase. Especially since the usual spin-doctoring seems to be flying about as well as a high powered post-hole auger.

I offer this stroke of genius with a certain reluctance. My stink-eyed stance against just about everything this government stands for is well-known. But us semimythical coyotes feel we must begin searching for whatever common ground we can find, in the current highly divisive political environment. Although now that I think of it, even mentioning the word "environment" probably gets me bunged onto some terrorist watch list for life. I digress.

Yet I note that the current Prime Minister and I can, in spite of all else, at least agree upon a deep and abiding love of cats. To be strictly fair, he loves his cats smothered in image-softening political spin, while us coyotes generally love ours smothered in Thai red sauce. What the hell. Ya gotta start somewhere, right?

So, in the spirit of offering a figurative fig leaf olive branch to a bunch of fiscally-reprehensible responsible hawks intent on purchasing the latest in bleeding-edge stealth aviation technology to, ummm, defend Canada's Arctic sovereignty from 60-year old Russian survey planes, I present five reasons for ditching the troublesome F-35 Stealth fighter for something stealthier, cheaper, and just all-round better for the True North Strong, Stable, and Majorly Responsible:

  • Stealth: The F35 is not nearly as stealthy as advertised. Since so much of the government's early rationale seemed to center on stealth capability, this could be a deal breaker. Not for the Catcopter. Does anybody know anything as stealthy as a cat?
  • Multiple engines: The F-35 has been criticized by some people for its single engine. If it fails on an Arctic patrol, the pilot is pretty much polar bear bait. Or a seawater ice cube. Not a problem with a Catcopter! It has four engines.
  • Handling: The most dangerous time in any flight is during takeoff and landing. And the F-35 apparently handles kind of badly. In fact, it needs a whole whack of onboard computers to help it fly straight. Catcopters? Surefooted to a fault. They always land right side up.
  • Fuel costs: The government and the defence department got themselves in a whole mess of trouble with the Auditor General for somehow omitting about $10 Billion - with a "B" - in lifetime fuel and maintenance costs from the cost estimates they presented to parliament. Pessimists called this outright lying. Optimists called it "a mere accounting quibble - and which would you rather be, a Gloomy Gus, or a right-thinking red-meat optimist?" I digress. Again. I say Catcopters would erase any accounting quibbles by fueling on kibble. And I'm pretty sure that the price of one stealth fighter gets you a whole swarm (herd?) of Catcopters. Instead of five dozen lousy planes to cover 202,080 km of coastline, you'd get bajillions!
  • There is no fifth reason. Ever.
* I had big help. Shake-a-paws to the Independent Observer and the Research Director, each of whom added their valuable imprinteurs to frank, open and productive discussions, after seeing Dutch artist Bart Jansen's Orvillecopter...

3 comments:

ZZZ said...

That photo is the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

David said...

I'm afraid cats are out because the Humane Society would have something to say about that...But what about baby seal copters? I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

coyote said...

Pish-tosh, sir!

With a little creative accounting, the military can get anything it wants. I'm pretty sure vast quantities of pre-deceased cats are no problem.

Because, while baby seals are obviously far more aerodynamic than cats, they don't always land on their feet. (See Bullet #3)

Further, if I were gonna have animal rights fanatics after me, I'd want it to be the SPCA, not PETA. They're just not as cuddly.