A
aesop081
Guest
The opposition will do exactly that : Oppose.
CDN Aviator said:
And it is called Question Period, not Answer Period.
Funny the Opposition and the Staples types never mention the vastly increased capabilities the F-35 brings to the RCAF beyond the limited Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground that the CF-18 or any of the other potential "4+" aircraft offers.
The F-35's ISR & EW capabilities will provide the RCAF with a whole new non kinetic operational capability.
- Reaction score
- 4,607
- Points
- 1,260
We'll see....Haletown said:
YupBrihard said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Brihard said:
Interesting post, so I'll only ask two questions:
What exactly are the capabilities which we don't realistically need, and why is it that we don't need them?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Well said. 100% agree here.
Is this the best platform for ISR and EW? I think recent conflicts have proven that UAV and retrofitted civil aircraft (ie. King Air) can complete these tasks considerably better at drastically reduced cost so not sure that ISR and EW are the best selling points for the F-35. To acquire more Gen 4+ aircraft at reduced cost still makes more sense to me. At the very least, it is worth serious consideration.
HH
WingsofFury said:
I cannot profess expertise, so recognize my words as those of a layman and as a concerned taxpayer. And I'm not saying that capabilities are completely unneeded, but that the desirability of some capabilities is outweighed by the dual concerns of other capabilities of higher importance, and the detrimental effect on the total fleet of buying a smaller number of highly technological planes that are likely overkill for much of what we do.
The first and foremost one is that I don't see the need for what is, in effect, a 'first strike' aircraft designed to penetrate air defense. Nice capability to have? Shit yet. But it's coming at the cost of more airframes that would in any realistic context likely be just as effective at the more realistic tasks our jets will face- defending our airspace as part of NORAD in combination with ground based radar and AWACS, and providing support to either coalition tactical bombing operations or close air support of our own troops in permissive airspace that the Americans have already swept clean.
Absolutely it's a tradeoff to give up the advantage of cutting edge stealth, but the cost of being able to be in the first wave of an attack that has to penetrate air defense seems to me to not be worth fewer aircraft that don't really excel in any one thing in particular.
The acquisition of F-35 touts interoperability with other air forces, and in that signs its own condemnation- we will realistically not be working without the Americans in any operation where the need to suppress air defense and win an air war is there, and so why pretend we'll ever be in a position to do it as well as they can? Better that we can provide our own very credible contribution to other tasks- the opportunity cost of a cutting adge aircraft is damned high, and only getting higher. There are other airframes out there that have what it is we're looking for, and the electronic guts can be developed to bring them up to snuff in areas where the F-35 has them beat currently.
- Reaction score
- 2,889
- Points
- 940
Yep, that SR-71 was abysmal at the high, fast stuff.Dimsum said:
Light-hearted mocking aside, a recurring problem with military thinking is the use of acronyms without thinking them through. Spell out "I" "S" and "R" and then argue your case -- threats (most likely/most dangerous), platform, current need, future need, doctrine, training, personnel.....you know, all that stuff.
But I'm just an Army guy
- Reaction score
- 19,956
- Points
- 1,280
Journeyman said:
The SR-71 was great for getting good, quick snapshots of heavily-contested areas. It wouldn't be the ideal platform for Pattern of Life stuff, where you'd want something that could hang around for hours (days?) and just see what's going on.
- Reaction score
- 2,889
- Points
- 940
Thank you. It's not great for "surveillance"; it wasn't too shabby for "reconnaissance" -- at the supposed 'strategic-level.'Dimsum said:
My point was, if someone blithely says "ISR platform" without thinking what "ISR" means, then it becomes......well, meaningless.
As you can gather, I have heartache with some terminology. We can debate "strategic" if you like, but that's a separate, pedantic thread ;D
- Reaction score
- 4,607
- Points
- 1,260
Wait for it...Brihard said:
A
aesop081
Guest
From my perspective, as an EW practitioner, it is not so much tasking the F-35 as a dedicated "ISR aircraft" as much as it is a case of the F-35 being a sensor itself. In the normal course of doing its "fighter" mission, the F-35's system can provide a wealth of information in the realm of EW that has implications beyond the tactical level.
I'm not a fighter guy but it seems to me that the technology in those systems and the F-35 itself are not tied to each other. I doubt that you could not incorporate something like DAS, for example, into a Typhoon or Raffale.
I'm not a fighter guy but it seems to me that the technology in those systems and the F-35 itself are not tied to each other. I doubt that you could not incorporate something like DAS, for example, into a Typhoon or Raffale.
HeavyHooker said:
Since the ISR & EW capabilities on the F-35 are a closely guarded secret, we don't know for sure.
One thing we do know is there is a better chance of the Buds winning back to back Cups happening before Canada will acquire any dedicated ISR and or EW aircraft. Not going to happen
If we acquire other aircraft we get a repeat of CF-18 capabilities. Only the F-35 extends the capabilities envelope.
Makes know sense for Canada to acquire lesser capability aircraft that will be obsolete in a few years - especially if they already cost more.
A
aesop081
Guest
Haletown said:
Since the terms "ISR" and "EW" are quite broad by definition, Canada does indeed already have one. There is much more to an "EW aircraft" than Wild Weasel or EA-type aircrafts.
- Reaction score
- 2,889
- Points
- 940
I've yet to see a logical argument supporting a need for those increased capabilities. What threat are we not currently countering with extant technology or is there some doctrinal gap the CF is missing?Haletown said:
If this is nothing more than technology-driven penis envy, we can't afford to play this game.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Journeyman said:
Oh yeah ?
"Anyone who questions the F-35 is a troop-hating, Taliban-loving, stupid, commie leftard."
:rage: ;D
drunknsubmrnr
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Journeyman said:
The Auditor Generals report on the F-35 buy is due in a few weeks. They'll probably look at the need for those capabilities, they did in the report on the F-18 upgrade.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200411_03_e_14907.html
Hopefully this time the RCAF came up with a better justification for the numbers required than being "financially reasonable".
Similar threads
