4 ms·
The F-35 is behind many older planes in traditional "fighter plane" metrics, like speed, manoeuvrability, etc.. It also didn't fare well in initial dog-fightin
by beloch 4y ago
The F-35 is behind many older planes in traditional "fighter plane" metrics, like speed, manoeuvrability, etc.. It also didn't fare well in initial dog-fighting trials, mainly because it was a new plane whose envelope hadn't been explored going up against planes that pilots knew how to wring every last ounce of performance out of. The thing is, dog-fighting isn't really the F-35's main role. It's more useful in modern combat as a flying command and control outpost.
That being said, Canada doesn't need 88 of these things. They're buying 88 because the government has convinced everyone that running more than one type of fighter is an expensive luxury that only top-tier militaries can afford, so they're going to use F-35's for everything right down to close air support. Everything. One plane. They're probably not even going to buy different F-35 variants and will just shoe-horn one variant into all roles.
What they should be doing is looking at how to replace manned fighter planes with drones in as many roles as possible, and using F-35's only in the roles where they are clearly superior to unmanned alternatives. If they did that, they'd probably wind up with an assortment of different drones better suited to individual tasks and a much smaller number of F-35's.
Telling the military what they need and spending more to do less are, however, longstanding traditions of both of Canada's ruling parties.
- koube 4y agoMy understanding is that f35s shoots down other planes perfectly well, in modern plane to plane combat. Saying it can't dog fight is a bit like saying a knife is superior to a gun because the gun didn't cut as well. Of course a gun doesn't cut well, modern fighting is about shooting not cutting. In the same way the f35 overmatches most other planes in BVR fighting but not in flying really close up and shooting the enemy with a gun. You should also know that planes can shoot at things behind them. There's no need to point the nose of the f35 at things. Drones are a game changer but they do not replace planes. When's the last time you saw a Bayraktar video? They were effective in the initial chaos but once a front was solidified, jamming and AA were able to stop them. They need to be able to act autonomously or they'll just be jammed.
- clouddrover 4y ago> using F-35's only in the roles where they are clearly superior to unmanned alternatives The F-35 will eventually be flown in combination with unmanned aircraft. The loyal wingman concept will have F-35s and F-22s leading a wing of fighter drones: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/secret-competition-for-air-force-loyal-wingman-drone-coming-soon https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/secret-competition-for...
- openasocket 4y ago> They're buying 88 because the government has convinced everyone that running more than one type of fighter is an expensive luxury that only top-tier militaries can afford Honestly they have a point. There are a ton of inefficiencies associated with having more than one type of aircraft in your inventory. You need separate training pipelines, not just for your pilots but all your maintainers. Spare parts aren't going to be compatible across airframes. All of these costs are relatively constant whether you are purchasing a handful of new airframes or a bunch. Which is why in most air forces around the size of Canada's you tend to see only a handful of distinct jet fighters. Usually there are just 2 procured in numbers: one being the new airframe, the other being the legacy airframe that is slowly being retired. Which is exactly what you are going to see in Canada's airforce: the hornets will be slowly retired as new F-35s show up, a process that will take decades.