Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionCat
The environmental risk is not from the jets using more fuel, but from unregulated shipping through the Arctic. Investing resources on stealth fighters at the expense of a real ice capable navy / coast guard leaves more gaps in our national security than the number of square centimeters of radar exposure on an F35 vs a take your pick of other jets.
Again, if you believe that our greatest threat is other nations carrying out air superiority campaigns against the RCAF, then the F35 is probably the best plane out there. I believe we should have updated fighters and we should actually be able to sail around our own coastline at the same time. I'm not saying don't have an air force any more than you're saying we should buy 19,000 F35s.
|
Operating ships in a hostile environment without air cover or air superiority isn't a particularly safe thing to do.
If we think the Arctic is important then our reasons probably revolve around economics (oil,gas, minerals), etc and, if that's the case, the expense of $1 billion per year for a 30 year lifespan is probably easy to make . . . . . and the fighters aren't just for Arctic defence either.
Any high-tech war in the modern era will be a "come as you are" event and it's difficult to gauge what the next, important threat or political event calling for their use might be.
Cowperson