Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

Oh, we can't operate in places like Iraq and get sucked into stupid US wars?

Darn! :P

That is a political question.......between now and ~2060, we could very much so be sucked into a war, and could have very little choice in the mater......at which point, it would be come as you are.

[On Guard for Thee]

Oh, we can't operate in places like Iraq and get sucked into stupid US wars?

Darn! :P

Another good point, which begs the question why would we need a so called stealth a/c unless we were thinking of going down that crazy road. Better to patrol our own borders and not jump over others. Unless of course you are freaked out about a group of Taliban guys trying to figure out how to attack with a couple of ancient, worn out Migs.

[Bonam]

That is a political question.......between now and ~2060, we could very much so be sucked into a war, and could have very little choice in the mater......at which point, it would be come as you are.

Depends on the war. If it's a real war (not some police action or regime change in some third world country), and isn't over in a few minutes of nuclear conflagration, nations will come out of it with very different technologies than they come to it with. Look at WWI and WWII. All the slow evolutionary incremental stuff we've done with military technology over the last ~50 years will be irrelevant in the blink of an eye as a blistering new pace of desperate innovation sets in.

[Derek 2.0]

Depends on the war. If it's a real war (not some police action or regime change in some third world country), and isn't over in a few minutes of nuclear conflagration, nations will come out of it with very different technologies than they come to it with. Look at WWI and WWII. All the slow evolutionary incremental stuff we've done with military technology over the last ~50 years will be irrelevant in the blink of an eye as a blistering new pace of desperate innovation sets in.

That's doubtful, again also assuming a war remained conventional, unlike 75 years ago, both the methods and technology today don't lend themselves to rapid rearmament in the lead up or during a war like they did during the second world war.....this is evident by Western/NATO forces reliance in on hand war stocks and the discarding of reserve (mothball) fleets of old equipment, acknowledging that even the United States doesn't have the capacity to refurbish old equipment during a war.

This was the experience for the Americans during Vietnam, that even with factories turning out munitions 24/7, still relied on nearly ~70% of the munitions dropped leftover from the Second World War.....or the British during the Falklands, that were unable to return to service portions of their own "reserve fleet" due to lack of domestic capacity.......or the Allies during Desert Storm, that nearly emptied all the munitions in Germany and Western Europe stockpiled to fight the Soviets, accumulated over decades, within two months.......or NATO/Canada's experience in Afghanistan, which saw years to obtain additional heavy lift helicopters, in our case waiting until after the war to receive new production.......

No, in another sustained war, like the Second World War, the Western nations would be hard pressed to keep up with both losses and expenditures, let alone build new capacity.........likewise manpower, 75 years ago training a 17 year old just off the farm with the most advanced technology of the day could be accomplished within weeks and months, today it takes years in highly technology reliant trades within modern militaries.......

It very much so would be come as you are.

[Bonam]

None of the wars you give as examples above were do or die wars from the perspective of the US or the UK or NATO. None were fullhearted, all-out efforts. None involved re-tooling the civilian economy completely for wartime production. Just because this hasn't been done since WWII doesn't mean it can't be done or wouldn't be done if it was necessary for survival.

[Derek 2.0]

None of the wars you give as examples above were do or die wars from the perspective of the US or the UK or NATO. None were fullhearted, all-out efforts. None involved re-tooling the civilian economy completely for wartime production. Just because this hasn't been done since WWII doesn't mean it can't be done or wouldn't be done if it was necessary for survival.

They very much so were wars of national importance, none the less, what civilian economy is there to retool? Unlike 75 years ago, Western Nations have seen heavy industry go overseas, likewise their human capacities in valuable fields of studies diminish.......The West isn't going to fight a war against a China for example, well relying upon deliveries of Chinese steel, shipped in Chinese produced cargo ships, to be shaped into the weapons of war by Chinese factory workers, weapons designed by Chinese engineers.........there is no extra civilian capacity waiting in the wings to be retooled.......

[cybercoma]

I love how Bonanza, says "survival" and you argue about "national importance" as if that's the same thing at all.

[Argus]

Another good point, which begs the question why would we need a so called stealth a/c unless we were thinking of going down that crazy road. Better to patrol our own borders and not jump over others.

Don't we have a border with Russia? Doesn't Russia have fighters? Isn't Russia run by a megalomaniac mass murderer?

Edited February 27, 2016 by Argus

[Army Guy]

None of the wars you give as examples above were do or die wars from the perspective of the US or the UK or NATO. None were fullhearted, all-out efforts. None involved re-tooling the civilian economy completely for wartime production. Just because this hasn't been done since WWII doesn't mean it can't be done or wouldn't be done if it was necessary for survival.

No but they do provide excellent examples on just how fast Modern warfare can chew through massive war stocks, things as simple as 5.56 rifle Ammo. During OP Mudusa in Afghanistan Canadian forces had burned through the entire Ammo build up for the entire Afghan mission in just 48 hours, of fighting...Fighting an insurgent war not a high intensity with a nation of serious weight....it had been forced to fly over most of Canadas war stocks from Canada, leaving behind a critical shortage within Canada, that took years to resolve completely.... plus the fact that Canada purchased massive loads from US military in Afghanistan throughout the rest of the operation.....

It would take many months to reconfigure a manufacturer plant to produce war materials, let alone train the staff on how to build, to spec, complicated war materials....let alone something as simple as a 5.56 round.....Derek is right, the next major conflict is come as you are, there is simply not enough time to convert civilian plants into military ones, the war would be over by then, with one side forced to surrender because it has nothing left to fight with....

I remember when I first arrived in Germany, posted to 3 RCR late 80s part of my incoming brief was an explanation of what our mission was, to delay the Warsaw pact forces for 48 hours, until reinforcements could be flown over from North America....sounded simple enough....then they told us what our life expectancy was for an infantry soldier.... it was measured in seconds, 7 seconds to be exact.... from the time we engaged the enemy or entered the battle space we were given seconds to survive....Granted this was the worse case scenario high intensity warfare at its worse, the use of chemical agents and tactical nukes were a foregone conclusion, and that was 80s tech, today wpns are much more efficient at killing........My point is this even if you could rapidly convert civilian manufacture sector to produce complicated wpns and equipment , in a timely manner .... the current Military of 64,000 troops would have been used up, deemed combat ineffective, with no replacements due in for months.....There is no longer such a thing as long and extended high intensive combat such as WWII, those days are over......the next one will be over in weeks, if that long.....take a look at the wars in Israel....

[On Guard for Thee]

Don't we have a border with Russia? Doesn't Russia have fighters? Isn't Russia run by a megalomaniac mass murderer?

Are we planning to attack any of these countries that you know of?

[Smallc]

Don't we have a border with Russia? Doesn't Russia have fighters? Isn't Russia run by a megalomaniac mass murderer?

Do you think that 65 planes, no matter the type, will make a difference if they decide to actually attack?

[Argus]

Are we planning to attack any of these countries that you know of?

The fighters won't arrive for at least ten years. Do you know what our relationship with Russia will be in ten years? They are to last 30-40 years. Do you know what our relationship with Russia will be like in 30 years?

[Derek 2.0]

I love how Bonanza, says "survival" and you argue about "national importance" as if that's the same thing at all.

Aren't they one and the same?

[Argus]

Do you think that 65 planes, no matter the type, will make a difference if they decide to actually attack?

Do you think we should simply eliminate the entire military, then, on the basis that we can't actually stop Russia if they launch an all-out attack?

The capability of your military is equal to the deterrent value of a neighbour deciding they want to take what's yours. This is what Georgia and Ukraine have found out. If its really easy to just walk in and take what you want certain people will do just that. If you want to provide no deterrent then you become 100% reliant on the US to defend us and must defer to them on all defense matters and HOPE that they put as much priority in your hanging onto territory as you do.

And frankly, if I was the US, that wouldn't be much. I'd be saying "So let me get this straight, you didn't want to put any money into defense and you get all sanctimonious and sneer at us as militarists and now you come crying to us because the Russians have decided they're in charge of that new big natural gas field you say is in your economic zone? Well, we're not getting into WW3 over your newly discovered gas field."

Edited February 27, 2016 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

Do you think that 65 planes, no matter the type, will make a difference if they decide to actually attack?

Yes, as our contribution to NORAD's North East and North West sectors......absent a dramatic increase in the Russian bomber force, our combined current levels with the Americans would make a difference against a Russian attack.

[On Guard for Thee]

The fighters won't arrive for at least ten years. Do you know what our relationship with Russia will be in ten years? They are to last 30-40 years. Do you know what our relationship with Russia will be like in 30 years?

Nobody doubts we need new planes, but unless you're planning to attack Russia we probably don't need stealth, especially stealth that may or may not work, and that the Russians have likely already hacked. Let's have an open process before we start shelling out the kind of money we're talking here. Or do like to just run out and buy the first shiny car you see?

[Derek 2.0]

The fighters won't arrive for at least ten years. Do you know what our relationship with Russia will be in ten years? They are to last 30-40 years. Do you know what our relationship with Russia will be like in 30 years?

Right now, today, the current Russian bomber force, namely the Tu-160, would pose a measure of difficulty (and mathematics) to intercept for American and Canadian forces based solely on its ability to sprint at great speeds..........going forward, the use of modern stealth aircraft like the F-35 (with a greater ability to share data with other aircraft in a secure environment, well reducing the ability of the Russian aircraft to detect it and its communications) will make intercepting the ultra fast Russian Blackjack fleet that much more easier...........

Who's to say where the Russian (or Chinese) will be 20 plus years from now........

[Argus]

Nobody doubts we need new planes, but unless you're planning to attack Russia we probably don't need stealth,

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose behind low radar profiles. It is not simply so we can launch a sneak attack on someone. The lower the radar profile the harder an aircraft is to shoot down and the closer an enemy has to be to do that.

[Derek 2.0]

Nobody doubts we need new planes, but unless you're planning to attack Russia we probably don't need stealth,

What if the Russians, or the Chinese attack us...or more likely, a Russian/Chinese client state attacks one of our allies with modern Russian/Chinese equipment?

especially stealth that may or may not work, and that the Russians have likely already hacked.

Does camouflage work.......that is after all what "stealth" is?

If stealth doesn't work, why are the Russians and Chinese (and the Europeans) developing stealth aircraft?

[On Guard for Thee]

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose behind low radar profiles. It is not simply so we can launch a sneak attack on someone. The lower the radar profile the harder an aircraft is to shoot down and the closer an enemy has to be to do that.

That's correct. So why then does the 35 need an F22 with it t

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose behind low radar profiles. It is not simply so we can launch a sneak attack on someone. The lower the radar profile the harder an aircraft is to shoot down and the closer an enemy has to be to do that.

Except the 35 can't hide from vhf radar signals and that makes it "radar shiny" And, loaded it's unmaneuverable to the point it needs an escort such as an F22 to protect it, hence the name "bomb truck"

[Derek 2.0]

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose behind low radar profiles. It is not simply so we can launch a sneak attack on someone. The lower the radar profile the harder an aircraft is to shoot down and the closer an enemy has to be to do that.

Exactly, just recently, the Russians restarted their cold war doctrine of escorting their bombers over the pole with fighter aircraft...........and to confirm this wasn't just a stunt, they have been doing the exact same mission profiles with their bombing missions over Syria..........clearly a stealth aircraft will have an advantage over non-stealth Russian aircraft......and when the Russians eventually employ their own stealth aircraft, a non-stealth aircraft will clearly be at a disadvantage......

Edited February 27, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Smallc]

Do you think we should simply eliminate the entire military, then, on the basis that we can't actually stop Russia if they launch an all-out attack?

Of course not - I'm simply saying that whether we respond to Russian aggression with 8 read Super Hornets or 8 ready F-35s will make little difference. It will either be enough of a deterrent, or it won't.

[Smallc]

our combined current levels with the Americans

That wasn't the discussion. As usual you respond to something not being talked about.

[Wilber]

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose behind low radar profiles. It is not simply so we can launch a sneak attack on someone. The lower the radar profile the harder an aircraft is to shoot down and the closer an enemy has to be to do that.

Seeing the other guy first is basic and goes back to "beware the hun in the sun" of WW1.

[Derek 2.0]

That wasn't the discussion. As usual you respond to something not being talked about.

No, it is........you raised the specter of Canada being unable to fend off the Russians........the reality, Canada wouldn't need to fend off the Russians absent the Americans, but that is not an excuse for Canada to not contribute.