F-35 can't take the F-16 in a dog fight?

[Rockie]

As far as the OPSEC thing, I a not about to lose my job because of a dick measuring contest on Avcanada

Oh please...no one's asking you to give away any secrets so you can relax.

If I was truly biaised, I would have a pro-JSF from the get go. But no, after learning about capabilities I changed my mind to favor the JSF.

Any thoughts on that of a non-military nature? If not do you think you might have a military bias?

[Spokes]

OPSEC?

No...political. If the government wanted CF-18's to operate somewhere worse than Syria but were unable due to outdated equipment that makes it hugely political and incendiary. I don't think even the Conservatives are that stupid, but then again every time I've thought that since they came to power they've proved me wrong.

And you know, sometimes it's beneficial to just stand back and look at a situation as part of a bigger picture. Canada is bombing Syria with CF-18's. Islamic extremists are nothing new, but if a few years ago someone were to suggest we would be bombing Syria we would say they're crazy. It's sickening that now it's accepted as normal.

I have been curious about this for a bit now. Are we actually bombing Syria, or just bombing these ISIS people who at times happened to be on the Syria side of a border that they do not really recognize. When our guys are dropping bombs on ISIS on the Iraq side of the border nobody seemed to be describing this as bombing Iraq?

[Rockie]

I have been curious about this for a bit now. Are we actually bombing Syria, or just bombing these ISIS people who at times happened to be on the Syria side of a border that they do not really recognize. When our guys are dropping bombs on ISIS on the Iraq side of the border nobody seemed to be describing this as bombing Iraq?

The Iraqi government has given Canada permission to be there conducting operations...the Syrian government has not. At least not so anyone will admit because it is politically unacceptable to be allied with Assad against mutual enemies. No permission to drop bombs on a country's territory means bombing that country regardless of whose head it actually lands on.

[iflyforpie]

And down the slippery slope we go... .... who'd have thought we'd be doing the same type of thing as the Americans were in Laos in the 60s? I'm truly becoming ashamed of this nation, and in the end it will make our citizens less safe.

[Gravol]

As far as the OPSEC thing, I a not about to lose my job because of a dick measuring contest on Avcanada

Oh please...no one's asking you to give away any secrets so you can relax.

If I was truly biaised, I would have a pro-JSF from the get go. But no, after learning about capabilities I changed my mind to favor the JSF.

Any thoughts on that of a non-military nature? If not do you think you might have a military bias?

What you're saying is that in order to make an informed decision or hold an opinion with new information, you must be bias? In that sense, we're all bias. Can you explain to me why any Canadian, other than Mulcair and Trudeau of course, would want public works deciding what fighter CF personnel will fly into combat?

A non military nature opinion? Sorry, I do care as a Canadian citizen, what the present day fighter force thinks, because they are the ones doing the job, NOT Mulcair, Trudeau, or Harper, as you clearly highlighted. What aircraft is bringing jobs to Canada? As far as i'm concerned, it's gotten to the point now that for all the the right reasons, the F35 may be the best option for Canada but due to NIL checks and balances and fatty mc fat fat sitting on their couch swallowing anything the media tells them, the process will be dragged along like the sea kings until we buy a fleet of USED katanas and paint peace keeper on the sides of them with a scary shark mouth cowling

[Trematode]

To some of the military guys here:

I am curious about your thoughts regarding the expense of running a more modern platform like the F35 -- would we not have fewer aircraft if we went this route? Would we not be flying them less frequently for training purposes? Wouldn't maintenance costs, especially related to the stealth features, keep these aircraft grounded more often than something like a Super Hornet?

What about the benefits of having a relatively cheaper, more numerous fleet that was more economical to operate on a routine basis, specifically with training in mind?

I thought our modern air force was already suffering from a less frequent training regimen, with pilots not getting as much stick time as they would have in generations past? Wouldn't a cheaper, more prolific fleet mean more seasoned and experienced pilots flying more often?

[Diadem]

What non-military aspects of purchasing a fighter aircraft are there? Do you ask for non-aviation opinions before AC decides to purchase new aircraft? What insight could doctors and chefs provide that the military wouldn't already have?

[fish4life]

I'm curious but Aux are we not close enough to the day of pilot less fighters that the F-35 maybe isn't the right airplane for us?

[trampbike]

The development of unmanned fighters in the next few decades actually makes for a great argumentin favor of the F-35.

[Rockie]

Can you explain to me why any Canadian, other than Mulcair and Trudeau of course, would want public works deciding what fighter CF personnel will fly into combat?

It's a government purchase not a military one, therefore government finance departments are involved. That's what happens in a democracy. Cost and a properly run selection and acquisition process (at least in theory) are two more obvious ones that come to mind and there are many more.

fatty mc fat fat

Haha, you made me laugh...

What non-military aspects of purchasing a fighter aircraft are there? Do you ask for non-aviation opinions before AC decides to purchase new aircraft?

Did you know it's not Air Canada pilots who decide what aircraft to buy? It's the business people. The military doesn't decide what aircraft Canada buys for the same reason, there are many more considerations than just how fast it goes and if they got exactly what they want Canada would go broke paying for it.

If you've ever bought a large item on a budget you should easily grasp this concept. Sure, you'd love to have that Ferrari, but you're unlikely to be driving it as fast as it can go on the streets of Gotham and you can only afford a Honda anyway. Same thing with that mansion in Maui that caught your eye...except you live in Edmonton and drive a bus for a living.

Since the military doesn't actually pay for the equipment they get, there are all kinds of unavoidable non-military aspects to any of their purchases.

[all_ramped_up]

If you ever bought a large item on a budget you should easily grasp this concept. Sure, you'd love to have that Ferrari, but you're unlikely to be driving it as fast as it can go on the streets of Gotham and you can only afford a Honda anyway. Same thing with that mansion in Maui that caught your eye...except you live in Edmonton and drive a bus for a living.

Since the military doesn't actually pay for the equipment they get, there are all kinds of unavoidable non-military aspects to any of their purchases.

This is why I liked the deal put forth by Dassault for the Rafale. The non-Military benefits to Canada as they were putting up investment in our aerospace industry and allowing us to develop the product further domestically.

Sure it's not 5th Gen but it's twin engine, versatile, NATO compliant and a proven platform.

But hey, I'm no expert.

[Gravol]

Can you explain to me why any Canadian, other than Mulcair and Trudeau of course, would want public works deciding what fighter CF personnel will fly into combat?

It's a government purchase not a military one, therefore government finance departments are involved. That's what happens in a democracy. Cost and a properly run selection and acquisition process (at least in theory) are two more obvious ones that come to mind and there are many more.

fatty mc fat fat

Haha, you made me laugh...

What non-military aspects of purchasing a fighter aircraft are there? Do you ask for non-aviation opinions before AC decides to purchase new aircraft?

Did you know it's not Air Canada pilots who decide what aircraft to buy? It's the business people. The military doesn't decide what aircraft Canada buys for the same reason, there are many more considerations than just how fast it goes and if they got exactly what they want Canada would go broke paying for it.

If you've ever bought a large item on a budget you should easily grasp this concept. Sure, you'd love to have that Ferrari, but you're unlikely to be driving it as fast as it can go on the streets of Gotham and you can only afford a Honda anyway. Same thing with that mansion in Maui that caught your eye...except you live in Edmonton and drive a bus for a living.

Since the military doesn't actually pay for the equipment they get, there are all kinds of unavoidable non-military aspects to any of their purchases.

Rock,

The fatty mc fat was not directed at you, it's just how I think of the average ill informed CBC nut job, stuffing their face with cheesies preaching to everyone how they know better and that for all intensive purposes, history started in 2006. Anything preceding that doesn't really count. They forget that it wasn't the conservatives who got us involved with F35 program. And my favorite, it wasn't the conservatives who brought us to Afghanistan. And oh, this one is good but I only save it for special people, and you're special, it wasn't a conservative government during allied force, which , received no UN mandate. Funny, the world of double standards when listening to today's talking points. And I am supposed to trust these people to make the right decision? The fighter crowd offers a variety of rational points which NEED be considered .

I find your Air Canada pilot example cheap because you're not comparing apples to apples. In that case, get Diamond katanas for the air force. They're cheap. Military procurement isn't like going to your local GM dealer and buying a fleet of vehicles. An Air Canada pilot isn't going to crash and burn because US airways purchased airbus on the same route while AC operates a boeing.

This seems to be an ideological debate between parties now, with nothing constructive being done. The people who will be directly affected will be the souls we hope never have to use the resources in the first place. You really don't know when you will have to bust out the ferrari on the streets of gotham. On said day you will wish you had the Ferrari, not the civic.

[Diadem]

Like Gravol said, military purchases shouldn't be about the best deal, they should be about the best equipment; when people's lives are at stake, we shouldn't be saving a few bucks and getting crappier stuff. There's that old adage about rifles, and that when needed most it's best to remember that they were made by the lowest bidder. If it costs a bit more to have a more effective aircraft with better survivability, should we really be more concerned with red ink? Why not cheap out on ejection seats while we're at it? People complain about how expensive military expenditures are, but then as soon as things turn sour from using crappy equipment, like unarmoured Humvees in Iraq, they turn around and blame the military for not giving soldiers proper kit.

[Rockie]

The fatty mc fat was not directed at you, it's just how I think of the average ill informed CBC nut job,

I know it wasn't directed at me, I just thought it was genuinely funny. I have to ask though, how is an ill informed CBC nut job any different than an ill informed SunTV nut job?

it wasn't a conservative government during allied force, which , received no UN mandate. Funny, the world of double standards when listening to today's talking points.

Russia's permanent status on the Security Council and accompanying veto ensures the UN is powerless to do anything in many situations, however you're forgetting Operation Allied Force was a NATO operation. Canada is part of NATO. Don't compare it to what's happening in Iraq and Syria now.

I find your Air Canada pilot example cheap because you're not comparing apples to apples.

It's exactly the same. What does the executive suite and Board of Directors know about operating airplanes? Nothing. Yet they make the decisions on what airplanes to buy and how many - as it should be. If pilots had their way we'd all be flying our own B787.

military purchases shouldn't be about the best deal, they should be about the best equipment; when people's lives are at stake, we shouldn't be saving a few bucks and getting crappier stuff.

Where and when our military is placed in a situation is entirely a political decision, that makes it the business of each and every Canadian. What constitutes the "best" equipment is also up to us depending on what we want it used for. In my opinion Canadian sovereignty is much more important than bombing Islamic extremists in Syria who haven't constituted a security threat against Canada (that will no doubt change if we continue to pursue American-like interference over there). The F-35 is not anywhere near the best airplane for defending our vast land mass and airspace for a whole host of reasons, not least of which is that it costs so much we can't buy enough of them to do the job. And then of course there's that other missing engine...

[Diadem]

And so we come to the crux of the issue: you're an isolationist, who doesn't want the military to participate in any foreign operations; the CAF's sole responsibility should be maintaining Canada's territorial integrity. The reality is that there aren't any threats to Canada's existence, and we aren't going to be invaded by any foreign country. Our only current territorial disputes are with the US and Denmark, and we're not going to war with either of them. Could we go to war with Russia or China in the next fifty years? Sure, potentially, but realistically if that happened they would just throw a bunch of ICBMs at North America; despite the fear mongering over Arctic security, the Russians aren't going to invade Ellesmere Island, and we aren't going to get into a shooting war in the high Arctic. Wars will most likely be fought between major powers the same way they have been since the Second World War: by proxy, in small conflicts between minor allies of the bigger countries, in places like Serbia and Syria. In conflicts like those, where one side or the other is giving equipment like BUK launchers to their allies, having higher tech equipment like stealth aircraft could be a deciding factor.
What we're talking about isn't even the F-35 at this point, it's a fundamental difference in perspective on the philosophy of use of the CAF. Those saying that the primary function of the air force should be maintaining sovereignty are essentially arguing that Canada engage in no foreign conflicts. The most realistic application of our fighters will be in things like NATO operations, and so choosing to have an aircraft that can function in those roles is the most important aspect. There aren't going to be any more wars like World War II, where it's blatantly obvious that one side or the other is in the wrong and needs to be stopped, so you can't expect that there will ever be a time when all Canadians are on-board with an operation. If we don't engage because we don't have 100% support of all Canadians, we will never take part in any other conflicts. You may agree with that, but not everyone does; I, for one, think Canada should maintain the ability to participate in NATO operations, as we've agreed to. Otherwise, if we're only concerned about sovereignty, we might as well just go with Iceland's approach and abolish the military altogether. If we don't want to participate in foreign conflicts, just get rid of the military, because realistically it's never going to fight on Canadian soil. On the other hand, if we want the ability to contribute to NATO, or take part in UN operations such as maintaining the no-fly zones over Iraq following the Gulf War, or even act totally independently when we think it's right, then we need to have the equipment that can perform those roles.

[Rockie]

Did I say we should renounce our membership in NATO? The UN? Did I say we should renege on our international commitments? Show me where I suggested anything to warrant your ridiculous conclusion that I'm an isolationist. For God's sake, do we have to stick our face in every conflict or be accused of isolationism?

And with regards to our sovereign integrity, name a country or government that doesn't make that their primary responsibilty and I'll show you a failed state or a puppet state of some other nation.

[iflyforpie]

There aren't going to be any more wars like World War II, where it's blatantly obvious that one side or the other is in the wrong and needs to be stopped,

Now that's funny.

You see... because we went to war against Germany because they invaded half of Poland. Doesn't anyone here remember who invaded the other half of Poland after colluding with Germany? That's right, the USSR, our glorious ally who we fought along side and gave tons of weapons to... ...and who also killed more people than the Nazis did--including systematic extermination of groups like the Kulaks.

This is why I hate war. The only conflicts I truly believe in are self-defense--repelling an enemy force from your homeland. In pretty much every conflict of the last half-century, we have been the aggressors, not the defenders. Even when you are supposedly helping someone defend their own country, all you are doing is adding fuel to the fire and risking blowback (like Ronnie Reagan's Mujahideen buddies, aka Osama Bin Laden and Co.)

[goingnowherefast]

We can't base modern day equipment purchases on 75 year old events. Policies should be based on not repeating said events, but equipment purchases should be based on the policies. (I)SIS (can't to call them Islamic, when they don't speak any form of Arabic). The F-35 is perfectly good at bombing guys with old fashioned rocket launchers. If the CF-18 could be upgraded with gen. 5 computers, radar absorbent paint and maybe even modern engines, then I'd say lets keep it. Doesn't seem to be the case.

I'll leave the decision on what best suits the CAF to the guys who have access to all the information about the various options.

Also, if WW3 starts, I'd bet we'll have F-22s pretty quick. If not flown by Canadians, then by Americans based at Canadian bases, depending on need of course. Or we will all be dead under a nuclear wasteland....

[Rockie]

Well that's the point isn't it? We need a 5th generation aircraft with obscenely expensive stealth technology to do what exactly? Conduct secret, unobserved strikes against countries where that technology is required to survive? Where is that exactly? China? Russia?

Why would we be conducting precision strikes against those countries or others like it with similar capabilities? We bomb Islamic extremists who drive Toyota trucks and plant IED's.

If we're flying precision strikes against any country with the kind of capability we need 5th gen (5th gen that works) we're all dead anyway. Better to spend the money on beer and go out in style.

Mea Culpa: Had a couple myself and feeling a little argumentative...sorry.

[goingnowherefast]

Don't they have radar guided anti-aircraft missiles? I had assumed that was the sort of scenario that AuxBatOn was referring to earlier.

Because of our current capabilities, we are somewhat limited with where we can operate because of the threat level associated. With a 5th gen aircraft, we wouldn't have those problems.

If the F-35 is a ground strike aircraft with enough air self-defense abilities to take down a gen 2 or 3 fighter, I'd say it's exactly what we need. As far as defending our airspace, we could even bring back our old CF-101s to scare away the occasional Tu-95 that gets too close. Dog fighting abilities are pointless when intercepting a 50 year old bomber.

[Troubleshot]

Don't they have radar guided anti-aircraft missiles? I had assumed that was the sort of scenario that AuxBatOn was referring to earlier.

Because of our current capabilities, we are somewhat limited with where we can operate because of the threat level associated. With a 5th gen aircraft, we wouldn't have those problems.

If the F-35 is a ground strike aircraft with enough air self-defense abilities to take down a gen 2 or 3 fighter, I'd say it's exactly what we need. As far as defending our airspace, we could even bring back our old CF-101s to scare away the occasional Tu-95 that gets too close. Dog fighting abilities are pointless when intercepting a 50 year old bomber.

So we are saying that the F35 is the only option then for what you describe here? I'm thinking it is over-kill for what you describe here personally.

[goingnowherefast]

I think the Eurofighter is a sweet looking plane!

What I'd like to see though, is an unbiased, and non-politically motivated decision based on our needs as a country and the capabilities of the aircraft. However much about the various theaters of operation, and the capabilities of the aircraft are kept secret, so the general public is not in a position to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, the people in the know and who will make the decision also have their own political agendas.

When people who do know the capabilities and operational aspects of such aircraft (like AuxBatOn) say it's a good fit, I am in no position to argue. Is The F-35 overkill? Maybe. Myself and most others on here have less-than-zero experience in that aspect of aviation.

[frosti]

I'll leave the decision on what best suits the CAF to the guys who have access to all the information about the various options.

This is who will end up making the decision, not some farmer in Bruno, Sask. Navy ships cost just as much as fighter jets, and you don't hear "experts" crawling out of their moms basements suggesting what boats we should buy.

[iflyforpie]

But Stillion and Perdue are both veteran aviators. Stillion flew in RF-4 recon planes and Perdue in F-15s during the Gulf War. “I don’t live in my mom’s basement,” Perdue said.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how ... 95d45f86a5

[Mostly Harmless]

Those who know about the F-22 won't talk about it too much...

And that's what peaks my curiousity. Is it not living up to expectations? Is it a shining star? Is it just a big secret?

Plus it's irrelevant.

As is this entire conversation and all of those preceding it.