4 ms·

Which ‘serious supersonic threats’ to Canada is the F-35 incapable of intercepting? The problem isn’t a lack of F-35 capabilities, the problem is that Canada d

by nickff 2y ago

Which ‘serious supersonic threats’ to Canada is the F-35 incapable of intercepting? The problem isn’t a lack of F-35 capabilities, the problem is that Canada doesn’t know what it wants. AFAIK Canada only has two fighter bases, and given the fact that the country is arguably the largest in the world, this means Canada is not serious about intercepting adversary aircraft. Canada also hasn’t had over 100 fighters in a long time, so it doesn’t have a significant deployable force. So what does Canada want?

toast0 2y ago
Realistically, as long as the US is a stable ally (which is currently in dispute), what does Canada need from its military? It's highly unlikely to be attacked based on distance to potential foes and proximity to the US. An attack from the US would be hard to defend on a military basis --- the difference in forces is overwhelming. Canada would need to heavily rely on alliances to defend against attack from the US, but logistics would be difficult; better to push on diplomacy and/or convincing US armed forces to refuse orders to attack their neighbor. The Canadian armed forces participate in international missions in cooperation with other forces, and in domestic matters. You don't really need fighter aircraft for domestic missions; and for international missions you need whatever will work in coalitions. With a stable US pushing the F-35, the F-35 is a reasonable candidate for coalition work. Without a stable US, the F-35 is a poor candidate; presuming Canada would continue to be allied with NATO ex-US, whatever that group decides is the future is going to be a better choice.
- onenukecourse 2y ago
  Why should Canada do coalition missions? They have nothing to do with Canada. Coalition missions are euphemism for beating up a weaker country. As far as I can remember, the F-35 in Canada was always argued by those who want to play John Wayne in foreign lands. If Canada can't defend against the US, then they should just accept they'll be swallowed by it or start making babies and populating the prairies. In the meantime, if Canada wants to contribute to defense of its allies, it should focus on creating a credible air counter to the Arctic.
  - kulahan 2y ago
    Every country on the planet is trying to catch up to the US - this isn’t Canada-specific. Canada’s only real differentiation is that they’re completely isolated, whereas at least Mexico has potential support from the southern direction.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    > Why should Canada do coalition missions? Canada does coalition missions because Canada relies on allies for defense. We traipsed along on British misadventures for a century or so because we relied on them for defense and wanted to keep the British happy, and then we traipsed along on American misadventures for the last century because we relied on them for defense and wanted to keep them happy.
onenukecourse 2y ago
The f-35 lacks the range and speed, coupled with the lack of airbases in Canada means that it is not very effective. Canada needs something like a Su-35, a big twin engine with a large range, but those aren't for sale, obviously. It's not the F-35's fault it's not suitable for Canada. It was never intended for tundra. It's Canada's fault that for the last 20 years there's been no juicy tender for a long range fighter to entice the europeans or the yanks to come up with a suitable modification of one of their twin fighter jets.
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  An F-35 doesn't need to be faster than an SU-35 when it has triple the radar lock on distance and missiles the SU can't outrun. The thing has a radar cross-section of a US 25¢ coin and can see beyond the horizon on radar, the Russian planes would be dead before they could react to it. It's such a comically overpowered plane that talking about it makes one sound like a kid at a playground making up rules for his action figure in a make believe fight.
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    I think you're giving the F-35 a lot of unjustified credit. For one, Russian air doctrine has long fielded interchangeable radar/IR homing seekers specifically to target American stealth platforms. If your F-35 is afterburning so it can match an Su-35's supercruise speed, they can get smacked by an R-77 from BVR by a Russian jet just as easily as an AIM-120 could crush the Sukhoi. Radar stealth is not a panacea in the EOTS era, and the F-35's side/rear aspect stealth is not enough to make it invisible at every angle. Furthermore, as much as I love a slick single-engine fighter, the F-35 is still fundamentally designed to operate in contested airspace. Canada, if they operated the jet for the next 50 years, would likely never have to use it for it's intended joint strike purpose. Unless you habitually molest the borders of other nations, the F-35 is not a purchase that makes a whole lot of sense to taxpayers. If the F-35 was truly "comically overpowered" then Congress wouldn't be asking to restart the F-22 production line, now would they?
    - 2y ago

by nickff 2y ago

toast0 2y ago

Realistically, as long as the US is a stable ally (which is currently in dispute), what does Canada need from its military? It's highly unlikely to be attacked based on distance to potential foes and proximity to the US. An attack from the US would be hard to defend on a military basis --- the difference in forces is overwhelming. Canada would need to heavily rely on alliances to defend against attack from the US, but logistics would be difficult; better to push on diplomacy and/or convincing US armed forces to refuse orders to attack their neighbor. The Canadian armed forces participate in international missions in cooperation with other forces, and in domestic matters. You don't really need fighter aircraft for domestic missions; and for international missions you need whatever will work in coalitions. With a stable US pushing the F-35, the F-35 is a reasonable candidate for coalition work. Without a stable US, the F-35 is a poor candidate; presuming Canada would continue to be allied with NATO ex-US, whatever that group decides is the future is going to be a better choice.

onenukecourse 2y ago
Why should Canada do coalition missions? They have nothing to do with Canada. Coalition missions are euphemism for beating up a weaker country. As far as I can remember, the F-35 in Canada was always argued by those who want to play John Wayne in foreign lands. If Canada can't defend against the US, then they should just accept they'll be swallowed by it or start making babies and populating the prairies. In the meantime, if Canada wants to contribute to defense of its allies, it should focus on creating a credible air counter to the Arctic.
- kulahan 2y ago
  Every country on the planet is trying to catch up to the US - this isn’t Canada-specific. Canada’s only real differentiation is that they’re completely isolated, whereas at least Mexico has potential support from the southern direction.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  > Why should Canada do coalition missions? Canada does coalition missions because Canada relies on allies for defense. We traipsed along on British misadventures for a century or so because we relied on them for defense and wanted to keep the British happy, and then we traipsed along on American misadventures for the last century because we relied on them for defense and wanted to keep them happy.

onenukecourse 2y ago

The f-35 lacks the range and speed, coupled with the lack of airbases in Canada means that it is not very effective. Canada needs something like a Su-35, a big twin engine with a large range, but those aren't for sale, obviously. It's not the F-35's fault it's not suitable for Canada. It was never intended for tundra. It's Canada's fault that for the last 20 years there's been no juicy tender for a long range fighter to entice the europeans or the yanks to come up with a suitable modification of one of their twin fighter jets.

sickofparadox 2y ago
An F-35 doesn't need to be faster than an SU-35 when it has triple the radar lock on distance and missiles the SU can't outrun. The thing has a radar cross-section of a US 25¢ coin and can see beyond the horizon on radar, the Russian planes would be dead before they could react to it. It's such a comically overpowered plane that talking about it makes one sound like a kid at a playground making up rules for his action figure in a make believe fight.
- bigyabai 2y ago
  I think you're giving the F-35 a lot of unjustified credit. For one, Russian air doctrine has long fielded interchangeable radar/IR homing seekers specifically to target American stealth platforms. If your F-35 is afterburning so it can match an Su-35's supercruise speed, they can get smacked by an R-77 from BVR by a Russian jet just as easily as an AIM-120 could crush the Sukhoi. Radar stealth is not a panacea in the EOTS era, and the F-35's side/rear aspect stealth is not enough to make it invisible at every angle. Furthermore, as much as I love a slick single-engine fighter, the F-35 is still fundamentally designed to operate in contested airspace. Canada, if they operated the jet for the next 50 years, would likely never have to use it for it's intended joint strike purpose. Unless you habitually molest the borders of other nations, the F-35 is not a purchase that makes a whole lot of sense to taxpayers. If the F-35 was truly "comically overpowered" then Congress wouldn't be asking to restart the F-22 production line, now would they?
  - 2y ago