segnosaur

From: http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/the-f-35-vs-the-vhf-threat/ Because of their relatively long wavelength, VHF radars generally lack sufficient accuracy to guide a missile to a target on their own... There have been some improvements, but even with improvements to VHF radar, you are still better off being in a stealth plan than a non-stealth plane in a combat situation.

Actually no, it hasn't been "hacked". Stealth is not an all-or-nothing thing. All planes are detectable to some degree by Radar, the point of stealth is to reduce that detectability as much as possible. Some radars do a better job at others at detecting certain planes, but regardless of the radar, an F35 will always be less detectable than an F18.

All the latest ``stealthy`type aircraft are by designed to be frist strike type air craft. Its still nonsense. Buzz words used by opponents of the F35 in order to falsely paint the plane in a bad light and score political points. Survivability is a factor in all military hardware, be it the F35 or the F18. The fact that the F35 has features that might make it better able to survive a combat situation is not a bad thing. As the F35 enters into full scale production, its cost has been steadily dropping. And while its "flyaway" cost is currently slightly more expensive than the F18, long term costs might actually be lower. (Flying an 'orphan' plane like the F18 will be in a decade adds to long term costs, since spare parts are harder to obtain.)

Problem is, I don't think that's feasible. We are a big country, and we have various military obligations and commitments. If we make a smaller purchase, what do we do when one of the planes is down for maintenance? And where do we place them? (We can't station them all at the same location.) Lets say we scale back and buy 20 planes (and use drones for everything else). Where do you station them? We've got 2 main bases (in Quebec and Alberta) and send the planes out to other bases in B.C., the maritimes and the arctic. With only 20 planes, we end up having only a couple of planes at each base, and if any plane was getting repaired, we'd have a gap in our air coverage. (One that drones couldn't fix.) 65 is probably the bare minimum that we can reliably expect to get away with. (And if I remember correctly, that's actually significantly lower than the number of planes we currently have in our fleet.)

As pointed out before... drones have their uses, but drone technology is not at the point where they can replace the role of fighter jets, and likely will not be at that point for several decades. Because weapons technology is continually improving, and trying to stay as current as possible is a good thing, should we ever deploy our military in situations like Libya or the Balkans again. If your argument is "only use proven technology" then we'd still be using Muskets and horses, rather than modern machine guns and the internal combustion engine. Somewhere, you have to abandon old technology for new, and since we tend to use military equipment for decades, we're better off to get the latest technology to delay its obsolescence as long as possible. Yup, true... the mass-produced American/Russian tanks managed to handle the supposedly superior German tanks in WW2. But it also meant that there were many casualties on the side of the Allies, as multiple American tanks were destroyed trying to take out a single German tank. We're not getting a 'carrier based fighter'. There are 3 versions of the F35... we were planning on getting the F35A (i.e. the same one that the U.S. air force was getting.) First of all, the U.S. is not making the F22 any more, and even if they did, they have export restrictions on them. Secondly, even if we could purchase them, they are more expensive than the F35. Also, the F22 is a fantastic fighter, but it is a little more limited in its ground attack role.... its internal weapons bays can't handle the same bombs that the F35 can. (And Canada has used its planes in that role before.... in Libya, Kosovo and the middle east. And all parties have, at one point or another, supported at least one of those missions. So its not out the realm of possibility we might do so again.)

Yep, and we already know how to fly 'em and fix 'em, so just bring on a few new shiny ones. Actually no, we don't. The F18E/F is almost a completely different plane than the CF18s/F18A/B/C/Ds that we fly. They are a substantially larger plane, with different engines (F404 vs F414), different weapons capabilities (upgraded gun on the F18E/F, more hardpoints, etc.) and very different avionics (different Radars, different radio systems). Don't count on the knowledge of the CF18 to be useful at all in dealing with the Super Hornet.. Basically, we'll be largely starting from scratch. Because when it's loaded it can't maneuver, (turn, accelerate, etc.) very well Actually yes it can. Or, it can at least maneuver better than most other planes under similar circumstances. The F35 is capable of carrying a significant number of weapons internally. (It can still carry weapons externally, but depending on the mission it may not be necessary.) Because of that, an F18/F16/etc. carrying the same number of missiles/bombs will likely be slower than an F35 carrying similar armament. In the past, Canada has used its planes in Kosovo, Libya, Iraq (both in gulf war 1 and against Isis.) In all those cases, we actually used our weapons against military targets. (And in some instances, those we were fighting against had weapons that could be used against us.) And even if stealth wasn't an issue... There are still more than enough reasons that makes the F35 a more logical choice than other options. (Supply lines, compatibility with allies, the ability to carry weapons internally which increases range and maneuvarability, etc.) Engine technology has greatly improved from the days of the F104. However, most of those reasons seem to be either political (oh no! the conservatives want them so they must be bad!) or based on faulty logic or information. Here's the issue... Its possible that Boeing or Eurofighter might offer contracts. But, the number of F18s/Typhoons/Gripens is much smaller than the number of F35s that will eventually be deployed. I would much rather our industry have contracts dealing with a fleet of thousands of F35s rather than hundreds of F18s/Gripens/etc. This is the type of B.S. argument that really shows the flaws in those who are against the F35. Yes, many of the countries purchasing the F35 have scaled back their orders. But you know what? The same thing probably happened to pretty much every plane out there.... For example, Austria cut its order of Typhoons. And Israel cut orders of the F16. It happens... planes are expensive and sometimes budget concerns take priority. Yes, some countries are reducing their F35 orders... but they're still buying them. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-austria-eurofighter-idUKL2675028220070626 You mean the Russians, who's new PAK/FA was criticized by its partner India for its poor engineering? http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/india-and-russia-fail-to-resolve-dispute-over-fifth-generation-fighter-jet/ The Chinese, who's engine technology is quite far behind the U.S., and who actually uses Russian engines on some of their planes? http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china-military-engines-idUKKCN0V62TR In any case, I always find that particular article rather bizarre... so you don't think the relatively modern F35 will stand up to Russia/China, so you think they should use an even older plane? The main issue there was the fact that the opposition was demanding cost estimates for 40 years, whereas the conservatives were only giving them for 30 years. Basically, it was pure politics... done for no other reason than to allow the opposition to jump up and down and complain about "rising costs", ignoring the fact that any plane requires ongoing maintenance and things like fuel. Oh it looks like there is still a lot of life in the Super Hornet production line. Except there's not. A couple of years ago, there was an expectation that the F18E/F production line would close in 2017/18. An order from Kuwait or Denmark, plus replacements for the U.S. military might keep it open for another year or 2, but its doubtful whether they will continue making them past the end of 2020. http://www.ibtimes.com/boeing-defense-jobs-st-louis-risk-kuwait-f-18-super-hornet-deal-left-uncertain-2284719 You are of course assuming that such a competition will be done fairly and impartially, with no political interference. Some of us are concerned that the government will pull a Chretien... i.e. purposely rig the requirements so that any plane but the F35 will win. (similar to what happened when they purchased the cyclone instead of the EH101.) Actually, if memory serves me, neither Trudeau Sr., nor Mulroney or Chretien purchased C17s. Back then, the Canadian military was forced to either rent planes, or get other countries to fly our equipment on various missions. The purchase of the C17s (even though it was "sole source") has actually worked out pretty well... the planes are serving as workhorses for our military. Which will likely continue whether or not the 35 is successful in a proper competition. It is true that as a partner we could continue to bid on F35 contracts if we remained a member country, even if we didn't buy the planes. However, bids are not always won based on price. We may find that we may loose bids to countries that actually purchase the planes, depending on whatever deals are made with Locheed Martain. (e.g. "we'll buy the plane if you give us X jobs" will put a country in a better position to earn a contract than "give us X jobs even though we're not buying the plane").

Irrelevant. The U.S. may be training people to pilot drones, but at this point they are not completely replacing fighter jets. Drones are useful, but they can't do what traditional fighter jets can. Actually, yes it is a big concern. Planes may be required to track other planes in domestic airspace. This was necessary when (for example) Payne Stewart's private jet lost contact, and it was necessary for the U.S. military to intercept and escort the plane for a significant length of time. (i.e. its not just a case of flying to the target and shooting missiles.) If a similar incident occurred today, currently available drones would be ineffective in tracking the target because they wouldn't be able to keep up with it. And even if we do intercept a Russian bomber, we aren't just going to fire on it and fly away... it will be escorted out of our airspace. And those TU95s can fly faster than a Reaper. I never said they could "never be used for patrols". I said that their capabilities to run patrols and engage in combat is limited. Notice my mention of combat? Rather an important point there. And notice I used the word limited? There are good points to drones... primarily their long loiter times. At the current time, their use in combat is restricted to targeted strikes. (Again, mostly due to the whole situational awareness thing.) And while they may be valuable for certain types of surveilance, they are not yet capable of replacing the functionality of traditional fighter jets.

You're right... we don't know what "future needs" we will have. But we are much better buying something as modern as possible now, rather than something which is fairly old by aviation standards (like the F18), since there is a better chance that, even if it doesn't satisfy our needs "in 40 years", it will likely do so longer than the older planes. Eventually there is a chance that unmanned drones will supplant manned fighters. But, that time is not yet now. The main problem with drones is the issue of situational awareness... Due to limitations in technology, drone pilots are limited in their abilities to "see" around them, which limits their abilities in combat, or in performing patrol duties. There are also other issues: - Some may be concerned about a system where a failed communication link can put a mission at risk - One mission that we may require any military planes for will be the interception of other planes (e.g. jet liners that are off course.) The maximum speed of a Reaper drone is 482 km/h. The maximum speed of a 767 is 913 km/h. This would mean that we could never use the Reaper to run basic air patrols over our own territory. Even jet-powered drones like the Avenger wouldn't be able to keep up. Until the technology advances further, I don't expect Drones to replace fighter jets for at least a few decades, long after our current fleet of CF18s have worn out.

To be fair though it's more likely they were poisoned by the very corporations that buggered offshore with most of the economy - the thing that's got them so riled up. There'll probably be a time when people come to see that was actually a blessing but a long long time I suspect. I sure feel for the poor bastards in the even more mal-governed regions of the world that Trump and Clinton's buddies set up shop. I think you misunderstood my point. Or I'm misunderstanding yours. My initial response was to the claim that left-wing supporters might flock to Trump if Sanders leaves the race because Trump was anti-free trade. When I brought up 'eating lead paint chips', I wasn't talking about environmental problems. I was talking about stupidity. As in Trump tends to attract supporters who are not very smart. I could have also said "Trump attracts supporters who's parents were brother and sister and who can play the banjo very well". Trump's opinions on free trade are all over the place.... he claims he's for free trade, but suggests ending various trade deals. He complains about job loss, yet he outsourced his own work to other countries. Anyone on the political left who isn't an idiot, and is anti-free trade, will probably look at Trump's policies with a bit more skepticism than "Hey he wants to end NAFTA! Lets vote for him".

A couple of points: - Its not that surprising that the F35 won't be "fully functional" for a few more years. Its a new plane, with all new issues regarding manufacture, deployment, etc. But its also irrelevant when it comes to Canada's purchases... Even if the government actually made a decision immediately, any planes we order probably wouldn't be 1) manufactured, and 2) ready to fly in that time anyways. Buying a plane is not like buying a car off an assembly line. So by the time we would take delivery, and have our pilots fully trained, and were ready to decommission our existing planes, the F35 should be fully tested. - Many of the delays in making it 'combat capable' involve tests with various weapons. However, the plane can still be considered functional even if not all the weapons have been tested. Haven't tested weapon X? Depending on the mission it may be possible to use alternative weapons which have been tested.

I guess the big question is, why NOT try to get some industrial benefit from buying the F35? Assuming multiple options that equally suit our needs and roughly equal costs, doesn't it make sense to pick the one that could end up giving some economic boost to our own country? Granted it does make plane comparisons a little more difficult, but if we're dealing with a multi-billion dollar program I'm sure a little extra paperwork shouldn't be a deal breaker. The problem is, even if we ignored the benefits of stimulating the economy, the alternatives might be more expensive in the long run. The Typhoon and Rafale already have a higher fly-away cost than the F35 (depending on the model), and while other planes may appear cheaper, they will likely end up being orphan planes, potentially making long-term costs higher. Even without the benefits of economic stimulation, the F35 is probably the best choice. The industrial side benefits are just icing on the cake. Mmmmmm... cake.

It is true that sometimes the issue of job creation takes a back seat to what the military actually needs, which is unfortunate. But, I don't think that's the issue here. If anyone has any contradictory information I could be convinced otherwise, but from what I've heard, the Military (or at least the air force portion) is in favor of the F35. So, its a case where the military request actually might actually match the option that could generate the best industrial benefits.

Some might want to do it, but it would be a really foolish idea. The Arrow was a very specialized plane... designed to fly really fast in one direction in order to intercept Russian planes. Its ability to maneuver or engage in ground targets (as our planes are sometimes called on to do) was very limited. Plus, computer technology has changed so much that all of its avionics would need to be completely replaced. Any attempt to 'update' the plane to give it a more all-around capability would probably require so many changes that you'd be better off scrapping the designs and starting from scratch. First of all, I would hesitate in calling the Russian TA-50 PAK FA an 'outstanding fighter'. It is still in the development phase (Its not even at the same stage as the F35), and there are significant questions regarding its capabilities. India is involved in the program, but flight engineers there called the engineering on the plane "unacceptable". There have been issues with the engines, and its thought that while the plane is going for 'stealth', the avionics are not what you would expect from a 5th generation fighter. It should also be pointed out that the Russians themselves have cut back their expected purchase of the plane, and are expected to only buy a dozen of them for their own air force. (Since the plane isn't in production, its not known how much they will cost, but it will possibly be in the $100+ million range, more than the F35.) http://www.defenceaviation.com/2014/01/indian-air-force-not-happy-with-sukhoi-t-50pak-fafgfa.html http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/india-and-russia-fail-to-resolve-dispute-over-fifth-generation-fighter-jet/ http://www.janes.com/article/58166/singapore-airshow-2016-analysis-pak-fa-s-asian-export-hopes-stymied-by-lack-of-fifth-generation-qualities Secondly, what exactly is the relevance? Canada would be extremely foolish to select a Russian plane regardless of the quality. While its doubtful we will ever get into a "shooting war" with the Russians, its certainly possible that we might end up having to deal with things like trade sanctions (e.g. over Russia's handling of the Ukraine), and I'd rather not be in a situation where we can't get spare parts because Putin is being a putz.

Trump is a protectionist/anti-free trade. That appeals to the big labour part of Democratic base. If opposition to free trade was a big thing for someone the Trump would be a better choice than Clinton. Trump is a protectionist who wears Italian suits and outsources manufacture of his clothing line to other countries. He claims hes for "free trade" but wants to implement huge tariffs. Trump gets his support largely by appealing to the demographic of people who ate lead paint chips as children. His policies are often incoherent and often contradictory, both within themselves and with his past actions.

Depends on why they're supporting Sanders. If they are supporting him because "He's an outsider" then some may migrate to Trump. But if they are supporting him for any reason related to policy, they'd be more likely to support Hillary than Trump.

It is true that reliance on land lines for polling has the potential to skew results towards the 'older' demographics. But, generally polling companies recognize the problem, and sometime take steps to adjust. (If, for example, it is found that a percentage of younger voters don't have a land line, they will take the percentage of voters in the same age group that do have a land-line, and give their polling opinions more 'weight' to account for the cell-phone non-responders. Its not perfect, but it at least partly fixes the problem.

I think you're seriously over-estimating the ability of 3d printing. I doubt that would really be of much benefit. The issue is not so much where spare parts are produced, but how much they cost. We will need spare parts (and possibly replacement aircraft), but our needs for such things will not come on an easily planned/scheduled basis. I doubt many companies will be willing to keep open a production line to produce spare parts for only 65 planes "just in case", without some serious cash outlay. Going with a plane that is actually IN production means that production lines don't have to be stopped/restarted, and costs can be shared among many countries, rather than forcing one country to do everything itself.

The problem is that military procurement works significantly different than most people are used to. We, as civilians, may find that our biggest purchase is a new car, something that we may expect to last 10 years or so. Buying planes is different... huge upfront costs, maintenance costs are examined in more detail, and we typically expect our planes to last 30-40 years (long after a new honda civic would have been sent to the junk yard). Its certainly possible that we could buy an "existing" plane (like the F18, or Grippen, or Eurofighter). They've been around long enough to have the 'bugs' worked out of them. But, not only do we have to consider our current situation, we also have to consider what will happen decades from now. The F18 is nearing the end of its production run. They are still building the Eurofighter, but it too will reach the end of production. If we bought either of those, in 2 decades we may find that we have an 'orphan' plane... one that isn't being produced (making it harder to buy replacements, or to get spare parts). The F35 does have problems. But, for better or worse, it will be the mainstay fighter for many air forces of the world. And more importantly, it will probably be produced for decades to come, long after they've stopped making the F18, Grippen and Eurofighter. That will make maintaining the plane easier in the long term. Even if the F35 didn't have significant advantages over other (existing) planes (it does, but I'm pretending it doesn't), the fact that its supply chain will continue to exist further in the future makes it a better choice.

How often does this have to be explained to you? Seriously, your troll-like behavior is getting annoying. Once again, There is a difference between targetting children and them dying as collateral damage. Got it? Seriously, what about that concept confuses you? Am I using words that are too big? Because with children, it is a little more obvious that they are non-combatants. With a <5 year old child, you can't claim that they're arming themselves, or giving assistance to terrorists. Yet Trump said he would kill them.

Trump business have declared bankruptcy 4 times. 4. And yes, Target did fail when they came to Canada. But you know what? It didn't cause them to declare bankruptcy. What makes you think he knows how to run a business? Trump's travel website. Trump vodka. Trump mortgage. Trump university. Trump steaks. Trump airlines. Know what they have in common? They all went out of business. Trump has more in common with the Kim Kardashians of the world (more or less talentless, but "famous for being famous") than in common with someone like Warren Buffet, who's wealth has grown faster than Trump's has. Actually, we don't know how much Trump is worth. He won't release his financials. As for his "business sense" Forbes said he might be worth $4 billion. Trump claimed he was worth ~200 million in the 70s. Had he put his money into an index fund (i.e. he didn't even have to "pick" stocks) he'd be worth ~12 billion. So Trump's businesses are doing worse than the stock market and the economy as a whole. Because he doesn't "tell it like it is". He has been found lying more often than any of the other candidates. Business ventures that would have been more successful if he just left his cash in the stock market and didn't touch it. Oh, and I should point out... Trump got his start by having family connections. (A sizeable inheritance, plus the ability to borrow money based on his father's reputation.) Yeah, self made man there. Except he's not... because as politifact showed. he lies more often than the other candidates. This has been explained to you. Over and over again. And over again. Someone would have to be pretty brain damaged to not understand that.

Well, keep in mind that in his little statement, he makes 3 accusations about Mexicans... drugs/crime/rapists. Then he tacks on "some, I assume are good people". He's not even giving them enough benefit of the doubt to say some are definitely good people. Hearing his statement, its quite logical to take away the assumption that he is suggesting a mexican crime wave. The problem is, congress does have limits on what it can do to mitigate Trump's damage. They can't (for example) fix any sort of foreign policy issues if Trump's stupidity damages relations with other countries. They can reject various nominations he might make, but they can't propose new ones.

Answered your own question...it just means that he/she is a politician with aspirations for higher office.Trump's plan to target and kill children should have been a non-starter. Even I (who is not an American) knows that the military would consider such orders to be illegal. This is not a case where a politician changes their stance based on outside factors changing. The laws against killing children were in place before Trump opened his mouth. He should have known it was a bad policy. Yet he proposed it, and stuck by his assessment even after the initial blowback. I would rather not have the U.S. president be someone who understands so little about the military and international politics that they would think to propose killing children in the first place.

Actually the person who he reminds me of most is Hugo Chavez, former president of Venezuela. Like Chavez, Trump is a populist. Their power is based in part on divisions and setting up a certain amount of paranoia within the population. (With Chavez, it was the rich and the Americans, with Trump its Mexican rapists, muslims, and "The establishment".) While Chavez never became a "dictator" in the proper sense of the word, he did take several steps towards that goal (limiting freedom of press for the opposition)... this is similar to the way Trump wants to broaden Libel laws against news papers. And while Chavez has lead Venezuela's economy to ruin with socialist policies, Trump will likely do the same with his lack of business sense.

Like Carter did with Iran during the hostage crisis. Slightly different situation... Its fairly easy to identify country by passport. (Its pretty much on the cover page.) Not sure how exactly you would identify how someone is a Muslim or not. Force them to eat a ham sandwhich at the border? Some people do see a difference between policies dealing with a country (a geo-political entity) than policies dealing with religion. A country can pass all sorts of laws targeting other countries (no trade with Cuba, etc.) but targeting those with a particular religion is problematic. It is true that other Administrations have advocated the use of torture. There are 2 issues here... - Trump has suggested broadening the torture laws. So, as bad as previous presidents were, Trump wants to make it worse - You would also hope that, being the 21st century, we could become more respectful of human rights, not less. How is his position different than Obama's drone strikes, which have attacked funerals, weddings etc? It is a different situation whether a child is deliberately targeted and killed (as Trump was proposing) and one where a child dies either through an accident or as collateral damage when an actual terrorist is targeted. War is not perfect.... innocent people do get killed. Generally the military does some sort of risk assessment (how valuable is the target? How many innocents could die?) before engaging in military operations in order to minimize the number of civilians killed. Its true that any political candidate can't control who votes for them. That goes for Obama getting support from Farrikan and Trump getting support from David Duke. There are 2 issues here though.. - Trump lied. At one point he said he didn't know who Duke was, yet its easy to go back a few years and find him specifically referring to Duke as a racist. At the very least, it shows Trump is either a liar, or has poor memory. - You should also ask yourself why people like Duke supported Trump. There were (at one point) over a dozen Candidates in the republican primaries. Duke could have thrown his support to (for example) Rubio or Cruz (or Bush or Christie, if Cruz was not white enough for him.) Obama did get support from african-American radicals, but its not like he deliberately made attempts to gather their support. On the other hand, Trump HAS been making statements that could be considered by many to be racist.

First of all, that article is behind a pay-wall. Secondly, I don't think it actually counts as a 'clarification'. A clarification suggests an initial statement that was unclear or could be understood in multiple ways. On the other hand, Trump's suggestion of killing the families of terrorists had no such issues of clarity... it was explained in lengthy detail, and everyone knew pretty much exactly what he was talking about. Furthermore, when initial objections were raised about whether the military would carry out an order that targeted children, Trump said they would do what he said, regardless of the legality. What Trump seems to be doing is actually changing his stated policy. That's not "clarification". Which brings up so many issues: If his initial statement was just rhetoric, and trump knew it was a lie, then what does it say to people who think trump is honest/tells it like it is? If its a case of changing positions, what does it way about a potential political leader who will take such a questionable position, and stick by it for an extended length of time, without doing basic fact checking?