Canada plans to buy NEW Fighter Jets - F-35 reported chosen

[speede5]

There have been multiple upgrades but we still aren't playing with the big boys to our full abilities. It is unreal how fast the avionics in these things gets outdated. Just think about how fast your computer becomes obsolete.

Besides, how many of us have a car that was built in 1982?

[Madman]

It's cool reading about the Super Hornets - I was under the impression they were just a newer version of what we currently have, but they are basically totally different jets from the cockpit back.

[CaptainCrunch]

Strategically, if I was facing an airforce made up of specifically drones I would send in a fighter sweep, taking advantage of their slower response time and poorer combat awareness due to lag from the control area. Kill them all, then send in my fighter bombers to paste the command and control center.

Or, better yet, I'd triangulate the command and control center and hit it with arty, missiles or bombs, making its destruction a key priority thus crippling my enemies air force within an hour.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by 0reo

No offense, but wouldn't stealth be better at evading rather than white smoke that covers only 2/3 of the aircraft?

Cool picture regardless.

That's actually condensed air and vaporizing moisture from the sonic boom.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by firebug

we should get the super-hornet, it has a great new cloaking mechanism.


correct source.
blog comment.

"vtec just kicked in yo"

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Trojan97

Most importantly, how is the trunk space in something like this? I always underestimate this feature when deciding upon which fighter jet I'm going to purchase.

Your joke ironically illustrates basically the major problem with the F-35, a lack of trunk space.

There's no 2-seater variant, it is heavy, it can only carry a limited payload, etc.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Strategically, if I was facing an airforce made up of specifically drones I would send in a fighter sweep, taking advantage of their slower response time and poorer combat awareness due to lag from the control area. Kill them all, then send in my fighter bombers to paste the command and control center.

Or, better yet, I'd triangulate the command and control center and hit it with arty, missiles or bombs, making its destruction a key priority thus crippling my enemies air force within an hour.

[CaptainCrunch]

Are you making fun of me?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

That's actually condensed air and vaporizing moisture from the sonic boom.

Leave out the sonic boom part, you don't need a sonic boom to have those. They're called Prandtl–Glauert condensation cloud or a Prandtl–Glauert singularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prandtl...rt_singularity
http://web.archive.org/web/200705102...ert-clouds.htm

[Madman]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

That's actually condensed air and vaporizing moisture from the sonic boom.

Not to de-rail, but it's not from the sonic boom - simply humidity and pressure at work.

Edit - photon beat me to it.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Strategically, if I was facing an airforce made up of specifically drones I would send in a fighter sweep, taking advantage of their slower response time and poorer combat awareness due to lag from the control area. Kill them all, then send in my fighter bombers to paste the command and control center.

Or, better yet, I'd triangulate the command and control center and hit it with arty, missiles or bombs, making its destruction a key priority thus crippling my enemies air force within an hour.

What makes you think there'd be a single command and control center that you could hit? What is the difference between taking out the command and control centers vs. taking out the enemy's airfields, taking out the Pentagon, taking out power plants, etc?

And whilst your manned fighters might have better response times, they'd also be heavier, less maneuverable, and outnumbered due to drones being cheaper, and your losses would lead to far greater war weariness on the home front than mine would.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by SebC

And whilst your manned fighters might have better response times, they'd also be heavier, less maneuverable, and outnumbered due to drones being cheaper, and your losses would lead to far greater war weariness on the home front than mine would.

There's no doubt that this is the future, but it is still 2 or 3 generations away. Right up there with unmanned airtravel, buses, etc. In the meantime this is a great option.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by speede5

There's no doubt that this is the future, but it is still 2 or 3 generations away. Right up there with unmanned airtravel, buses, etc. In the meantime this is a great option.

Can't commercial planes pretty much fly themselves already? And I think the biggest reason our cars aren't automated is that the automakers don't want the responsibility. I'd have guessed we're about 0.5 generations away... we've got drones, we've got fighters, and half the cockpit is VR anyways. I can't see why it would be too hard to make fighter drones.

[Hack&Lube]

I love how we are all armchair airforce generals here. I admit I am just a dork with wikipedia and a few courses with poli sci prof who was waaay too obsessed with all things military.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

What makes you think there'd be a single command and control center that you could hit? What is the difference between taking out the command and control centers vs. taking out the enemy's airfields, taking out the Pentagon, taking out power plants, etc?

And whilst your manned fighters might have better response times, they'd also be heavier, less maneuverable, and outnumbered due to drones being cheaper, and your losses would lead to far greater war weariness on the home front than mine would.

A manned fighter doesn't need a command and control center. you can take out airfields, and take out the pentagon, and take out communications, or power and the planes can still take to the air, and fly.

In todays battlefield where they focus on taking out communications, and where the attacking of battle links almost takes priority a remote commanded vehicle run from one or even multiple centers is going to get priority attention especially if you can take out air cover in massive numbers.

While your right, a drone is smaller and lighter and more maneuverable then a human piloted counter part.

In a fight to gain missile lock in a turning fight the human pilot is going to gain the advantage because there's no possible lag on a manned plane.

You also run into the problem with communication jamming. A remote piloted vehicle could have trouble with this. A human pilot can continue to fight without a radio.

Until you develop a certain amount of autonomy in drone technology where it has the ability to fight without human intervention, I don't buy that its a relevant or good replacement for current technology.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

A manned fighter doesn't need a command and control center. you can take out airfields, and take out the pentagon, and take out communications, or power and the planes can still take to the air, and fly.

In todays battlefield where they focus on taking out communications, and where the attacking of battle links almost takes priority a remote commanded vehicle run from one or even multiple centers is going to get priority attention especially if you can take out air cover in massive numbers.

While your right, a drone is smaller and lighter and more maneuverable then a human piloted counter part.

In a fight to gain missile lock in a turning fight the human pilot is going to gain the advantage because there's no possible lag on a manned plane.

You also run into the problem with communication jamming. A remote piloted vehicle could have trouble with this. A human pilot can continue to fight without a radio.

Until you develop a certain amount of autonomy in drone technology where it has the ability to fight without human intervention, I don't buy that its a relevant or good replacement for current technology.

Thats all good, but how does this relate to Canada? Who is sending fighter sweeps and doing ground jamming against us? USA? Anyone else would have to deal with big brother to our south. And if it's the USA we don't stand a chance no matter what equipment we have.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Byrns

Thats all good, but how does this relate to Canada? Who is sending fighter sweeps and doing ground jamming against us? USA? Anyone else would have to deal with big brother to our south. And if it's the USA we don't stand a chance no matter what equipment we have.

Again its the changing face of warfare.

Canada has sent fighters out to aid allies before, it will happen again.

We're part of Norad so theres a certain requirement in terms of participating in our air defense.

Who knows, in 15 years with the arctic problems we could find Soviet Bomber forces coming over the arctic circle.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Byrns

Thats all good, but how does this relate to Canada? Who is sending fighter sweeps and doing ground jamming against us? USA? Anyone else would have to deal with big brother to our south. And if it's the USA we don't stand a chance no matter what equipment we have.

We are getting 65 F-35s. The US is getting 2500 :P

Another argument for drones is again in numbers. You can lock onto an enemy fighter from hundreds of kilometers away and a fighter only has so many countermeasures. Put enough cheap drones in the sky out of any sort of effective tactical jamming range and the fighters could be nullified.

It's the old Shermans vs Panzers again

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Byrns

Anyone else would have to deal with big brother to our south.

And this is exactly the attitude which has Canada with such a limited armed forces. We ned to be able to stand on our own two feet. You want an Airforce, you have to buy planes. I've been working on them for over 20 years and it's pretty pathetic what Canada has compared to most of the G nations. People need to quit whining when we spend a few bucks on equipment which we are going to suck every usable ounce af capability out of. We have gotten 5x our money's worth out of the 18's, herc's, buff's, and 20x out of the sea-kings.

It's hard to comprehend ~9 billion dollars being any sort of deal, but it's not like buyng a Ford at the local dealer. These contracts includes tooling, spare parts, support equipment, training, simulators, and is going to have a maintenance component built in.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by speede5

And this is exactly the attitude which has Canada with such a limited armed forces. We ned to be able to stand on our own two feet. You want an Airforce, you have to buy planes. I've been working on them for over 20 years and it's pretty pathetic what Canada has compared to most of the G nations. People need to quit whining when we spend a few bucks on equipment which we are going to suck every usable ounce af capability out of. We have gotten 5x our money's worth out of the 18's, herc's, buff's, and 20x out of the sea-kings.

It's hard to comprehend ~9 billion dollars being any sort of deal, but it's not like buyng a Ford at the local dealer. These contracts includes tooling, spare parts, support equipment, training, simulators, and is going to have a maintenance component built in.

You have to remember, Canada has a population that is smaller than the whole of California so in perspective, what we are spending on National Defense is proportional to that.