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

[Byrns]

A valid comparison for Canada is Australia, but our focus tends to be more of a peacekeeping role than a deterrent for foreign aggression.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Byrns

A valid comparison for Canada is Australia, but our focus tends to be more of a peacekeeping role than a deterrent for foreign aggression.

Austrailia is also isolated from any big allies, so they need to be strong. Canada's military role over the past few decades has been to be a component part of NATO. It definitely gives us some advantage.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Byrns

A valid comparison for Canada is Australia, but our focus tends to be more of a peacekeeping role than a deterrent for foreign aggression.

Our focus has gone away from peacekeeping roles.

The primary role is still the defense of Canada, followed by the defense of NATO and NORAD.

In terms of Peacekeeping we've dropped to the bottom in terms of active deployments and thank god for that.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by 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.

speak for yourself. i played the starcraft 2 beta.

[SebC]

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.

More questions:

How useful are planes if the facility they take off from and land at is destroyed? Until the pilot runs out of fuel or falls asleep? I guess you could land on a road, but could you take off again after that? I brought up the Pentagon as an example of a high value target because it's important and obvious. Yet, I don't think the Americans are worried about having it bombed (or shelled by artillery). The idea is that the forces protect it, so you simply can't get there.

Missile lock? According to the Northrup-Gruman video I posted earlier, the F-35 doesn't need to be pointed at its target, so I don't know why a drone would need to be either.

Communication jamming is a good point, but at least with remote piloted planes if the plane does get hit your economic damage is minimized. And you could probably have the plane preserve itself by automatically deploying countermeasures, although you'd lose your offensive capacity as my understanding is that a person has to be responsible for all attacks under the Geneva conventions.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its easy to divert a plane to another facility. Its more difficult to divert a drone if its data links or lines of communication are denied.

On the missile lock its dependent on the missile, and the technology involved. The missile lock theory and range is the same between a drone and a fighter. With the data delay its probably going to be more difficult for a drone to dodge a missile then it is for a manned pilot to dodge a missile.

If I knock out your communications, I'm taking out a wack of your drones at one time.

And on your second point, your correct

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

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.

Yes, in a time of need we could all huddle together in Manitoba and have air cover for the entire populace

[0reo]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its easy to divert a plane to another facility. Its more difficult to divert a drone if its data links or lines of communication are denied.

On the missile lock its dependent on the missile, and the technology involved. The missile lock theory and range is the same between a drone and a fighter. With the data delay its probably going to be more difficult for a drone to dodge a missile then it is for a manned pilot to dodge a missile.

If I knock out your communications, I'm taking out a wack of your drones at one time.

And on your second point, your correct

Wow, I'm impressed on how much knowledge you have on this subject.

[photon]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/...nada-jets.html

Confirmed today, new F-35's coming to Canada.

Super Hornets would have been cheaper, they aren't a true 5th generation fighter but really do we need cutting edge?

I also heard that exported F-35's are going to lack the stealth paint and other things vs. the US versions. Anyone know any good info on that?

[Cliche]

Originally Posted by photon

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/...nada-jets.html

Confirmed today, new F-35's coming to Canada.

Super Hornets would have been cheaper, they aren't a true 5th generation fighter but really do we need cutting edge?

I also heard that exported F-35's are going to lack the stealth paint and other things vs. the US versions. Anyone know any good info on that?

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2593.html

Theater commanders want one kind of F-35 to go to war for a coalition so that battle planning is made easier. Having three different stealth profile F-35s in a coalition war environment limits the kind of high threat targets that a mixed bag of F-35 stealth signatures can go against and reduces the combat effect of the force

[Azure]

Awesome. Glad they made this decision.

[photon]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n28831896/

The problem would be exacerbated by the fact that the most effective LO technologies are the most sensitive, so the LO differences are not likely to be trivial. Export customers will have to sell their taxpayers on the idea that they are paying $30-$40 million apiece for aircraft which are, all other things being equal, more likely to be shot down than the aircraft flown by the USA.
The design of a non-stealthy or less-stealthy JSF raises other questions. If it is not stealthy, should it have an active jamming system, including a towed decoy? Will it need short-range AAMs for the close air combats that will no longer be avoided? (Lockheed Martin is already offering optional SRAAM stations for its JSF: customers would not be happy to give up two of four external stations for defensive weapons.) Any such steps will degrade commonality and make the aircraft more directly comparable to the F-16 Block 60 or Typhoon.

Or a Super Hornet.


So I wonder if we'll be getting the full meal deal.

[Codes]

I'm glad that Canada is actively pursuing new and upgraded military technology.

The Canadian Forces are among the very best, and we have become experts at being elite with inferior technology. I want nothing but the best for our men and women in uniform. If they are in combat, I want them to be as safe and effective as possible.

With new ships on the way, and a complete replacement of our airforce, we're sitting pretty. It's a good start, but there are other things that we should probably upgrade to ensure we can adequately protect ourselves from a seemingly unstable future.

1) Heavy lift helicopters (I think we got some used ones during the Afghan War)

2) Some kind of combat helicopter system, or at least some kind of upgrade on our current Griffons.

3) An updated main battle tank system. The Leopard IIs are once again "hand me downs", though effective.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by photon

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n28831896/




Or a Super Hornet.


So I wonder if we'll be getting the full meal deal.

That's a really crappy deal, it feels like we are getting the shaft if they have a different stealth profile because the Americans don't want to share their stealth coating or jamming technology. It's like exporting guns to your neighbors which have half the accuracy of the ones you keep for yourself. They are already keeping the F-22s to themselves to maintain an advantage. The Joint Strike Fighter by definition should be a coaltion based and equal tool for all partners/customers.

[RubberDuck]

Originally Posted by Codes

3) An updated main battle tank system. The Leopard IIs are once again "hand me downs", though effective.

Per Discovery Channel's "Greatest Ever Tanks" the Leopard II was ranked #1 of all time, ahead of the M1 Abrams.

http://www.yourdiscovery.com/greates...ks/index.shtml

[Hack&Lube]

Leopard IIs are wicked. Saw a few being transported down the TransCanada last year.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Leopard IIs are wicked. Saw a few being transported down the TransCanada last year.

Funny name though.

Maybe they should call them Ligers instead.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Funny name though.

Maybe they should call them Ligers instead.

German tanks are often named after big cats, the Tiger Tank, the Panther Tank, etc. Ligers are impotent, they suck.

[CaptainCrunch]

I find it funny that the tank list doesn't have the M1A1, they just have the M1 variant.

I would still rank the Leopard II's pretty highly though and with the Canadian modifications in fire control and other areas its a very capable tank in the modern battlefield.

And I am happy about the F35 purchase.

[Hack&Lube]

Leopards have the same gun as the M1A1, or actually, it is the other way around, the M1A1 uses the German Rheinmetall gun of the Leopard II...the Leopard just doesn't have the jet engine of the M1 but the diesel engine is probably more efficient on fuel.