F-35 Lightning II Discussion

[jutes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Who was it that said that Canada shouldn't be buying fighter planes anyway. I agree with that guy.

If Canada wants to monitor its sovereign landmass, UAVs are a much better option. The idea that Canadian fighter pilots would ever need to get in some big dogfight in a conventional war sense is pretty comical.

Let me know when UAVs can intercept airliners and Russian bombers in the north. UAVs are laughable deterrents. Not having fighters means a complete rewrite of our defence policy, including letting American jets base in Canada for NORAD. It’s political suicide that no political party, short of the greens, will follow. The UAV you are suggesting is still 40-50 years away.

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Im not talking BVR, im talking about a CLOSE IN knife fight in a phone booth

The whole goal these days is not to be in a dogfight...

Might as well have a380's loaded with hundreds of racks of aim120's and drones for targeting.

That's why the focus has been on awacs and communication infrastructure - 100% avoid any risk of ending up in an actual dog fight.

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Who was it that said that Canada shouldn't be buying fighter planes anyway. I agree with that guy.

If Canada wants to monitor its sovereign landmass, UAVs are a much better option. The idea that Canadian fighter pilots would ever need to get in some big dogfight in a conventional war sense is pretty comical.

If we were anything serious about the need to defend ourselves I would solidly disagree, but unfortunately the concept of Canada defending itself against much more than Somali pilots, that ship sailed a long time ago.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Let me know when UAVs can intercept airliners and Russian bombers in the north. UAVs are laughable deterrents. Not having fighters means a complete rewrite of our defence policy, including letting American jets base in Canada for NORAD. It’s political suicide that no political party, short of the greens, will follow. The UAV you are suggesting is still 40-50 years away.

It's political suicide because they canadian population thrives on delusion.

65 f35s based a few hundred kilometers north of the US at a couple of airbases is a deterrent? Let's quit kidding ourselves over who is actually the deterrent around here.

Id much rather a bunch of uavs loitering over the north monitoring things 24/7

[jutes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's political suicide because they canadian population thrives on delusion.

65 f35s based a few hundred kilometers north of the US at a couple of airbases is a deterrent? Let's quit kidding ourselves over who is actually the deterrent around here.

Id much rather a bunch of uavs loitering over the north monitoring things 24/7

Quantity has nothing to do with it.

Nothing is loitering in the north, what are they looking for, polar bears and lost snowmobiles? How do you think fighters are sent up north before the Russians get anywhere near our coasts?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Quantity has nothing to do with it.

Nothing is loitering in the north, what are they looking for, polar bears and lost snowmobiles? How do you think fighters are sent up north before the Russians get anywhere near our coasts?

I'm not worried about Russian bombers at all.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Let me know when UAVs can intercept airliners and Russian bombers in the north. UAVs are laughable deterrents. Not having fighters means a complete rewrite of our defence policy, including letting American jets base in Canada for NORAD. It’s political suicide that no political party, short of the greens, will follow. The UAV you are suggesting is still 40-50 years away.

Thats where the F35 loyal wingman UCAV, among other network centric warfare items, come into play. We would not be a nation of UAVs only.

Whats also happening is the massive improvement in electro optic imaging technology - DND can now beam a 10 GHz beam from oribit down and see through buildings to an extent. The imaging tech available in UAVs is growing by leaps and bounds.

[Go4Long]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yup, crazy landmass size and not only that, very few airbases actually at the edges. Couple that with the totally anemic range, and even less range when taking off in cold weather, no assisted takeoffs (like you would get on a nuclear aircraft carrier) Its plain retarded to actually use them for defensive defense of Canada. Never forget, these are basically flying bricks of nickel.

They are pretty much designed to be used as first strike carried on nuclear aircraft carriers that can move into close-ish proximity to their target. Great for starting a war, but not so great for ending one.

At this point in time, with the Huawei and Covid going on - even if Canada wanted to buy from China, I don't think China would be willing to sell anymore. Chance missed.

As for "going around the moon with the USA" Well, they better fix their landing rockets because if they make it around the moon only to die slowing down on approach to earth it would be horrible (SN8) A failure going around the moon in year 2035 would be a solid admission that the original never happened.

Anemic range next to what? The F-35 range on internal fuel is more than a super hornet with CFT's. The F-35 is only out loitered by an F-15E with cfts and bags on.

[killramos]

Serious question, drones can’t shoot down a bomber?

Air to Air missile equipped drones not a thing?

Can’t you fit stingers in a backpack?

[Gman.45]

Even if you're not worried about Russian bombers, we are still part of NORAD, and they still need to be intercepted. A shooting war with Russia and the USA, while not being very likely, could still happen, even in a very limited engagement/event, and if so, you can be certain that Russia would be sending bombers through Canadian airspace, which means they'll be gunning for our C3 in order to degrade the Americans/NORADs effectiveness. As Jutes said, you can't rely on drones to do this, as they aren't there yet (friend of mine, Carl Norman, works for DARPA on this very thing, air to air capable drones - right now they can be used against a certain threat, ie in a shooting war, but they can't intercept unknowns and make decisions in a non-shooting war environment, they don't have reliable AI for this yet, and it's decades away still). There needs to be a "man in the loop" still in terms of decision making in the cockpit. Just how it is right now.

Regarding the F22 - it isn't just thrust to weight and thrust vectoring that gives it an incredible capability in close (video below). Yes, the USAF focuses on using C3/Awacs/data link/situational awareness modes in fighters/etc to maintain a picture of the battle space, the enemy isn't going to sit by and just let this happen without contesting it, which means piles of enemy ECM and other methods to degrade the USAF/NATOs ability to maintain this accurate picture of what's happening. This, and a thousand other things, can happen and make fighters, even the low observable F22/F35 with their incredible sensors and data management systems sucking in information, be degraded in this area, which can result in BVR not being so easy to accomplish, and ACM fights can be the result, ie merging with enemy fighters/strikers. The F22 is well equipped for this, and the F35 is no slouch either. Again, watch this video below, one of the best I've seen on the F22 capabilities in this regard, starts getting into F22 stuff at the 15 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evhrk5tY-Yo

[jutes]

Looks like people just want to read endless Covid threads..

Attachment 96270

[Go4Long]

Lol. Butthurt people gonna be butthurt.

$5 on zenops.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Even if you're not worried about Russian bombers, we are still part of NORAD, and they still need to be intercepted. A shooting war with Russia and the USA, while not being very likely, could still happen, even in a very limited engagement/event, and if so, you can be certain that Russia would be sending bombers through Canadian airspace, which means they'll be gunning for our C3 in order to degrade the Americans/NORADs effectiveness. As Jutes said, you can't rely on drones to do this, as they aren't there yet (friend of mine, Carl Norman, works for DARPA on this very thing, air to air capable drones - right now they can be used against a certain threat, ie in a shooting war, but they can't intercept unknowns and make decisions in a non-shooting war environment, they don't have reliable AI for this yet, and it's decades away still). There needs to be a "man in the loop" still in terms of decision making in the cockpit. Just how it is right now.

Regarding the F22 - it isn't just thrust to weight and thrust vectoring that gives it an incredible capability in close (video below). Yes, the USAF focuses on using C3/Awacs/data link/situational awareness modes in fighters/etc to maintain a picture of the battle space, the enemy isn't going to sit by and just let this happen without contesting it, which means piles of enemy ECM and other methods to degrade the USAF/NATOs ability to maintain this accurate picture of what's happening. This, and a thousand other things, can happen and make fighters, even the low observable F22/F35 with their incredible sensors and data management systems sucking in information, be degraded in this area, which can result in BVR not being so easy to accomplish, and ACM fights can be the result, ie merging with enemy fighters/strikers. The F22 is well equipped for this, and the F35 is no slouch either. Again, watch this video below, one of the best I've seen on the F22 capabilities in this regard, starts getting into F22 stuff at the 15 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evhrk5tY-Yo

This isn't a video game.

We have 17% of the world's coastline, in remote areas which are difficult to get to. We have 4% of the world's population, mostly huddled along the border. I can relate to the quaint nostalgia of a bunch of dudes strapping themselves to jet engines and missiles and blasting off to meet the enemy at dawn.

It's just that the math doesn't work out.

We're a huge country, with a G8 economy (for now), and yet our military is barely a rounding error on the world stage? And you think somehow the Americans don't have contingency plans to defend their northern border from "Russian bombers" that don't rely on the feckless Canadian population with our feckless leaders?

[Ca_Silvia13]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And you think somehow the Americans don't have contingency plans to defend their northern border from "Russian bombers" that don't rely on the feckless Canadian population with our feckless leaders?

Shoot'em all and let God sort them out

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Looks like people just want to read endless Covid threads..

Attachment 96270

LOL .... wtf retards

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Even if you're not worried about Russian bombers, we are still part of NORAD, and they still need to be intercepted. A shooting war with Russia and the USA, while not being very likely, could still happen, even in a very limited engagement/event, and if so, you can be certain that Russia would be sending bombers through Canadian airspace, which means they'll be gunning for our C3 in order to degrade the Americans/NORADs effectiveness. As Jutes said, you can't rely on drones to do this, as they aren't there yet (friend of mine, Carl Norman, works for DARPA on this very thing, air to air capable drones - right now they can be used against a certain threat, ie in a shooting war, but they can't intercept unknowns and make decisions in a non-shooting war environment, they don't have reliable AI for this yet, and it's decades away still). There needs to be a "man in the loop" still in terms of decision making in the cockpit. Just how it is right now.

Regarding the F22 - it isn't just thrust to weight and thrust vectoring that gives it an incredible capability in close (video below). Yes, the USAF focuses on using C3/Awacs/data link/situational awareness modes in fighters/etc to maintain a picture of the battle space, the enemy isn't going to sit by and just let this happen without contesting it, which means piles of enemy ECM and other methods to degrade the USAF/NATOs ability to maintain this accurate picture of what's happening. This, and a thousand other things, can happen and make fighters, even the low observable F22/F35 with their incredible sensors and data management systems sucking in information, be degraded in this area, which can result in BVR not being so easy to accomplish, and ACM fights can be the result, ie merging with enemy fighters/strikers. The F22 is well equipped for this, and the F35 is no slouch either. Again, watch this video below, one of the best I've seen on the F22 capabilities in this regard, starts getting into F22 stuff at the 15 minute mark.

That video was just wow - the smart/thinking technology is just amazing. For eg. the wings have anti-flex algorithms built in to the control surfaces for a certain G loading threshold is pretty impressive.

[Gman.45]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This isn't a video game.

We have 17% of the world's coastline, in remote areas which are difficult to get to. We have 4% of the world's population, mostly huddled along the border. I can relate to the quaint nostalgia of a bunch of dudes strapping themselves to jet engines and missiles and blasting off to meet the enemy at dawn.

It's just that the math doesn't work out.

We're a huge country, with a G8 economy (for now), and yet our military is barely a rounding error on the world stage? And you think somehow the Americans don't have contingency plans to defend their northern border from "Russian bombers" that don't rely on the feckless Canadian population with our feckless leaders?

Of course they do. During 9/11, there was a plane coming through our Northern airspace (one of the Asian carriers IIRC), and the pilot fucked up his transponder settings plus there were comm issues, so NORAD/etc decided it was a potential hostile suicide plane. Well, the RCAF wasn't able to do the intercept, and the USAF had to send up F16s and tanker assets to do so, and they did. So, yes, the USA obviously has both the capability, and plans (they have plans for many contingencies), for coming into Canadian airspace to deal with potential threats. Still, we're part of NORAD, and to give up our say in what happens during intercepts in our airspace, is exactly what you're suggesting Buster, as your drone idea is decades away from being feasible. Your points might be valid, but in a war time setting, or even just footing, they'll go right out the window, and everyone will be screeching about why we weren't better prepared and able to have our own defenses. You can count on that, it's a historical certainty.

Your position should surprise me considering your family history on this subject, but it doesn't, as like I said, your points have validity should the shaky peace between CHina, Russia, and the USA/NATO continue. If it doesn't, we'll need the new fighters. We can't count on USAF/USN/USMC support, as they may have their own problems to deal with, and/or their bases, runways, and aircraft caught on the ground might be smoking holes in that ground. Then what.

Also, just giving up our fighter capability essentially rolls back the defensive lines Russia would have to deal with back hundreds of kms, if not thousands. Giving Russia free bonuses these days isn't a real great idea, based on their recent behavior in the Ukraine, Crimea, Lith/Lat/Estonia, and so on. You should know how short ranged modern fighters are, and counting on USA fighter assets to be able to stretch up here to defend our airspace from their bases down in the USA.

edit - however downvoted Jutes = giant homo.

[ZenOps]

The main argument on defense against a Russian invasion, is that the Russians would not be flying in - unless then intended to bomb.

The likely route is they will come under the ice.

[Gman.45]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That video was just wow - the smart/thinking technology is just amazing. For eg. the wings have anti-flex algorithms built in to the control surfaces for a certain G loading threshold is pretty impressive.

I know, I was very impressed with the info this test pilot provided that MIT class. Things I'd never seen discussed online before. Great vid, even though it's long, it's very worth it.

[Gman.45]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The main argument on defense against a Russian invasion, is that the Russians would not be flying in - unless then intended to bomb.

The likely route is they will come under the ice.

Of course they'll intend to bomb/cruise missile/hypersonic missile/etc our assets. How exactly are they coming under the ice in force? Unless they've created a long range submersible troop/armor/artillery/etc, this isn't going to happen. Their submarines could in theory break through the ice and hit us with both cruise and ballistic missiles, but that's very old news. They aren't going to "invade" using submarines under the ice, this is something out of GI Joe and even more impossible than air to air pilot out of the loop drones right now.

You're sort of right in terms of a smart battle plan from the red team (Russia) would be to strike simultaneously with both air and sea assists in any conflict against Norad/NATO/whatever, but they can't bring troops or mech units across in anything other than ships (aside from air assault/airborne troop drops, but their capability is small). It'll be airborne threats we'd need to deal with first and foremost, hands down.