Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[waldo]

I'm not "squirming" the least

no further cycles to waste with you! Your latest failure and mega-deflection act has been laid bare.

.

[Wilber]

Yes and no......it comes down to both the number of interceptors you have, the locations they are based at and trigonometry......an old Canuck would be very hard pressed to run down a 777 unless it was placed in the airliners path from the start............much the same argument can be made with the "modern" Russian Blackjack bomber, no western fighter can catch the bomber on a mach 2 sprint, ergo, one has to place itself in the bombers path or intercept it before it starts sprinting.......now only if there was a way to prevent the Russian bomber's radar from knowing it was being intercepted, preventing the aircrew from putting the spurs to it

We aren't really set up to intercept airliners or civilian aircraft anyway except those coming from the north and north west. If someone is threatening to fly a light aircraft into a building in Vancouver or Toronto, F-18's based in Cold Lake and Bagotville are pretty useless. Likewise, an airliner coming from the Pacific would be intercepted by USN F-18's out of Whidbey long before our aircraft could get to them.

[segnosaur]

Good points but civilian aircraft aren't any faster than they were in the sixties. Subsonic fighters would do just fine if that's all we are doing with them.

A couple of points:

- As D2.0 said, it largely comes down to geometry... We've got a big country with many cities/potential targets, and only a small handful of air bases. If you want to go with a cheaper/slower plane, you will need to buy more of them, and station them at more air bases. This makes the overall cost higher than it might be otherwise. (And you still end up with worse protection, since many of those subsonic fighters wouldn't be able to track/trail an airliner for any length of time. After all, you likely wouldn't want to go in and shoot at first sight.)

- Back in the 60s, we had Hundreds of fighters. We have far fewer now, and we're likely going to be purchasing even fewer than we currently have.)

- The nature of threats has changed over the decades. Back in the 60s, the main risk was hijacking-for-profit, not the "crash and hope to kill many people" that seems to be the main scenario now.

[Derek 2.0]

We aren't really set up to intercept airliners or civilian aircraft anyway except those coming from the north and north west. If someone is threatening to fly a light aircraft into a building in Vancouver or Toronto, F-18's based in Cold Lake and Bagotville are pretty useless. Likewise, an airliner coming from the Pacific would be intercepted by USN F-18's out of Whidbey long before our aircraft could get to them.

We aren't alone, that's the benefit of NORAD.......our Hornets aren't useless, they just have different intercept vectors, dependent on the location of the light aircraft, on the East coast, they're just as likely to be intercepted from the Vermont or Massachusetts Guard unit's F-15s and F-16........on the West Coast, Oregon ANG F-15s, or Alaskan based F-22s......inversely, our Hornets in Cold Lake have allowed the Americans to reduce resources in the central to Midwestern States.......the point, this is how collective defense works, and we better be willing to contribute, or the Americans will do it how they see fit .

(USN doesn't base Hornets at NAS Whidbey, just Growlers and Orions, nor does the USN or USMC factor into NORAD intercept missions)

[Wilber]

We have airliners and civil aircraft entering and flying all over the country. At this time, we only base fighters at Cold Lake and Bagotville. It wouldn't matter what type of aircraft we had, we couldn't cover the country from those two bases. If all we want to do is protect the country from civil aviation threats, we would be far better off buying a whole bunch of cheaper low tech aircraft and basing them near every major centre.

[Wilber]

We aren't alone, that's the benefit of NORAD.......our Hornets aren't useless, they just have different intercept vectors, dependent on the location of the light aircraft, on the East coast, they're just as likely to be intercepted from the Vermont or Massachusetts Guard unit's F-15s and F-16........on the West Coast, Oregon ANG F-15s, or Alaskan based F-22s......inversely, our Hornets in Cold Lake have allowed the Americans to reduce resources in the central to Midwestern States.......the point, this is how collective defense works, and we better be willing to contribute, or the Americans will do it how they see fit .

(USN doesn't base Hornets at NAS Whidbey, just Growlers and Orions, nor does the USN or USMC factor into NORAD intercept missions)

I agree, we better be able to contribute because when it comes to protecting Canadian cities from civilian threats, it looks like the Americans are better equipped to do it than we are. US Growlers carry AMRAAM's but that would be overkill.

[Derek 2.0]

We have airliners and civil aircraft entering and flying all over the country. At this time, we only base fighters at Cold Lake and Bagotville. It wouldn't matter what type of aircraft we had, we couldn't cover the country from those two bases. If all we want to do is protect the country from civil aviation threats, we would be far better off buying a whole bunch of cheaper low tech aircraft and basing them near every major centre.

You're missing the point, we don't have to "protect our entire country" because we're afforded collective defense through NORAD, which allows us and the Americans from needing to base "low tech aircraft near every city"..........with "low tech aircraft" you will revert back to the early 1950s, when there were nearly aircraft near every major center, and be unable to defend North America efficiently.........

........A modern police force doesn't need a cop walking on every corner today, but if you elect to return to callboxes and forgo costly digital comms you sure will.....

[Wilber]

You're missing the point, we don't have to "protect our entire country" because we're afforded collective defense through NORAD, which allows us and the Americans from needing to base "low tech aircraft near every city"..........with "low tech aircraft" you will revert back to the early 1950s, when there were nearly aircraft near every major center, and be unable to defend North America efficiently.........

........A modern police force doesn't need a cop walking on every corner today, but if you elect to return to callboxes and forgo costly digital comms you sure will.....

Hey, I'm with you, I just don't think intercepting civilian aircraft is a consideration at all when you are choosing a fighter aircraft. It's nothing more than a sidebar.

[Derek 2.0]

I agree, we better be able to contribute because when it comes to protecting Canadian cities from civilian threats, it looks like the Americans are better equipped to do it than we are. US Growlers carry AMRAAM's but that would be overkill.

Of course the Americans are better equipped, inversely Canada offers a buffer to their country.......it reverts to the debate over 50 years ago, which boils down to either American or Canadian forces intercepting threats to America over Canadian soil........we're just lucky the Americans no longer need nukes to do it.......

It doesn't mater what USN/USMC aircraft carry, absent them being forwarded to USNORTHCOM and NORAD, which they aren't........if NORAD required additional interceptors and tankers during a time of increased tensions, a combination of ANG and USAF Reserve units would be mobilized, likewise any regular force units across the United States.......Canada doesn't have this luxury, hence a requirement to select the correct asset that we will get the greatest return of investment and granted an allowance to integrate with the Americans without a hitch.

[Derek 2.0]

Hey, I'm with you, I just don't think intercepting civilian aircraft is a consideration at all when you are choosing a fighter aircraft. It's nothing more than a sidebar.

Agreed, though its a potential threat, its one easily addressed by a modern integrated force.

[Argus]

I'm saying it's a false premise.

Why? How?

[Argus]

We still need some kind of self defence capability. We're not going to defend ourselves against our most likely aggressor on our own regardless.

Which is what alliances are for. But if you bring nothing to the alliance why should they want you?

[dre]

Which is what alliances are for. But if you bring nothing to the alliance why should they want you?

We've fought in numerous wars over these alliances, and spent billions of dollars, and wasted thousands of lives. We have never asked for anything what-so-ever in return, and chances are we never will. And if we DO need help with territorial defense its not going to be Turkey or France. It will be the US.

We should spend whatever we want on whatever we want to buy. If NATO doesn't like it they can pound sand.

We should ditch NATO and just expand on NORAD.

[Moonbox]

I'm not "squirming" the least, the SDB II will very much so be apart of the F-35's arsenal for performing CAS, as such would clearly be indexed for any future CAS requirements........SDB II won't be apart of the A-10s inventory.....nor can the A-10 defend itself against enemy fighters........nor can the A-10 perform SEAD......etc etc

Then why do you keep deflecting and making up fake arguments (ie. pretending someone's saying something they're clearly not? That looks like squirming to me.

In the context of Canada's Hornet replacement? Where?

How many times does this need to be explained to you? Waldo laid it out clearly and you ignored his explanation in stride and clumsily fabricated a completely different and unintended meaning for it. I corrected you in no uncertain terms, waldo confirmed my correction for you, and you're STILL somehow lamely insisting otherwise.

once one bothers to actually get in the weeds with you, it always becomes clear just how little you actually know - the clear cut give-away is when you start to wildly deflect by dropping go-fetch links that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand or the statements you've made.

.

This isn't the first time someone's told you this Derek. We're highlighting areas and reasons for concerns about the F-35 program. Lockheed Martin talking points and a link to Nellis' home page don't address any of them.

The fact that the A-10 and the F-35 are being tested head-to-head on CAS capabilities and that this decision was made very recently (it came even as a suprise to Bogdan) suggests there are perhaps new and/or ongoing concerns that need addressing.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Moonbox

[bush_cheney2004]

Doesn't matter how F-35 and A-10 compare during a CAS "competition", as USAF and Congressional proponents for either will claim victory in the United States. Meanwhile, some Canadians will pretend that it all applies to their dysfunctional CF-188 replacement program.

CAS was so important to Canada in Afghanistan that it didn't bother to send very much.

[Derek 2.0]

Doesn't matter how F-35 and A-10 compare during a CAS "competition", as USAF and Congressional proponents for either will claim victory in the United States. Meanwhile, some Canadians will pretend that it all applies to their dysfunctional CF-188 replacement program.

CAS was so important to Canada in Afghanistan that it didn't bother to send very much.

Agreed...........said "CAS competition" is akin to comparing an IBM Selectric typewriter to a modern smartphone.........And the Government of Canada isn't currently in the market for either.

[Argus]

We've fought in numerous wars over these alliances, and spent billions of dollars, and wasted thousands of lives. We have never asked for anything what-so-ever in return, and chances are we never will. And if we DO need help with territorial defense its not going to be Turkey or France. It will be the US.

We should spend whatever we want on whatever we want to buy. If NATO doesn't like it they can pound sand.

We should ditch NATO and just expand on NORAD.

Gee, can I translate that as "Canada is back!", because I'm sure THAT will do wonders for our international reputation, image and influence that you people on the left have been so horrified about over the past ten years or so. Or is it only our 'reputation' among Muslim dictators you guys care about?

[Smallc]

Which is what alliances are for. But if you bring nothing to the alliance why should they want you?

We bring nothing now.

[dre]

Gee, can I translate that as "Canada is back!", because I'm sure THAT will do wonders for our international reputation, image and influence that you people on the left have been so horrified about over the past ten years or so. Or is it only our 'reputation' among Muslim dictators you guys care about?

Gee... Can I translate that as...

Moronic babbling that doesn't even touch on the post its in reply too...

Image and influence? ROFLMAO.

Edited April 14, 2016 by dre

[dre]

We bring nothing now.

We bring a hell of a lot more than we ask in return.

Anyhow... NATO is a joke. It was designed to counter Russia, but when Russia started invading its neighbors NATO just whimpered and whined. All it does now is bomb random dark-skinned folks for political reasons.

Lets get out before we waste another dime. A North American defense pact with the US and Mexico might make some sense.

[Smallc]

We bring a hell of a lot more than we ask in return.

I'm talking about to our alliance with the US - we add 0 to their capability - i.e., what they can do with us is what they can do without us.

[Army Guy]

It is true that the entire NATO alliance can not provide any different Capabilities than the US already has. However what NATO brings to the table is Numbers , greater economic powers, Nations locations etc etc....Europe is not the only US concern it is but one of many. NATO gives the US the flexibility to do more with what it has...

Every Battle group Canada had in Afghanistan is one the US did not have to provide. While our over all contribution may have been small , every drop into the bucket counts. and is important when looking at the global picture.

[Moonbox]

Agreed...........said "CAS competition" is akin to comparing an IBM Selectric typewriter to a modern smartphone.........And the Government of Canada isn't currently in the market for either.

An inept analogy - as poorly thought out as usual. Obviously you thought that was clever but the A-10 is still very much relevant and needed/wanted.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canadians have had A-10 Warthogs on the brain before....anything to distract from the CF-188 replacement task...and expense.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/its-time-for-the-rcaf-to-buy-used-u-s-a-10-warthogs

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/should-canada-buy-americas-a-10-attack-jets-2ed990f2f204#.wlt490qjm

[Derek 2.0]

An inept analogy - as poorly thought out as usual. Obviously you thought that was clever but the A-10 is still very much relevant and needed/wanted.

I see, so that's why the USAF started looking at options to replace them 30 years ago? Or no other nation has sought to purchase surplus and early retired aircraft since the early 90s drawdown.......The Americans "gave-away" early block F-16s to anyone that wanted them, but nobody clamored for the "very much relevant" A-10...........On paper, one would think countries like South Korea, Poland and countless Middle Eastern countries would have been in the market for a "very much relevant" anti-armor/CAS platform like the A-10......further still,the Philippines, African or Latin American countries that are fighting decades long insurgencies.......yet nobody has sought an aircraft, from the United States (that hands out surplus aircraft like candy), that is "very much relevant"...........why is that?