The US is threatening #Canada (again) if we don't buy their F-35s.

@RichRARobi @elasticsoul Well, why not, but the question is whether the benefit (if any) over traditional launching is worth the time and cost of development.

Wikipedia says that a TAURUS weighs ca. 1.4 tonnes, while the maximum total take-off weight of a typical Cessna 172 is <1.2 tonnes (including the aircraft itself which is 800 kg). Also, I'd assume that a cruise missile needs a certain minimum launch velocity that the aircraft must fly at.

@elasticsoul after threatening to invade Canada surely they’re not surprised that they don’t want to buy their planes?

@alessandro @elasticsoul Why buy any F-35s at all? They have a laundry list of issues, including problems in harsh environments, and apparently the US military has been hiding poor performance compared to older models, like the A-10 warthog. They were over hyped and are not at all worth their asking price.

@NovaNaturalist @troy_frizzell @su_liam @elasticsoul

I’m reminded of a novel I read back in the 80’s (David’s Sling… I think?) that included an interesting look forward at some of this cheap disposable warfare: amongst other things they posited satellites carrying a bunch of mostly inert but self-targeting metal missiles (basically crowbars with control fins and simple sensors) that could function as bunker and silo busters through simple inertia. I’m not sure how practical that specific idea is, but the general idea of being able to cheaply produce essentially disposable weaponry is likely to be revolutionary over the next decades.

@troy_frizzell @su_liam @elasticsoul

The math really starts to be against these impressive, expensive, high tech systems: US has fewer than 3,000 fighter jets of all sorts, and every one destroyed will take millions of dollars and years to replace, and Canada could produce 5 million drones (several thousand for each jet) at the same cost as our 16 new fighter jets.

@pixelcode @elasticsoul

Thinking about weight, etc then, what is needed is a simple straight (?) wing chassis and two electric powered props. Sling the taurus or similar under the wing. Nothing complex, simple controls to get it on its way. Quick would help, and make it as inconspicuous as possible, as stealthy as possible. No landing gear needed, but if possible the chassis should turn back home for re-use!

Take it as far as it can, then release to do the job.

@DavidM_yeg @elasticsoul @su_liam @troy_frizzell one still needs jets to patrol large areas (like our Arctic or Atlantic coasts). Had USA not shied from helping Ukraine, jets would have bombed every border entry point on day 1 on the 2022 war making it much harder for Russia to invade. Could have been Vee different war. War turned to drones because the west refused to give Ukraine the conventional weapons it needed.

@jhooper

Every platform has its issues, and I trust the judgment of the experts who were tasked with making the decision. The Warthog is a grossly overrated and completely different plane - it's like comparing a car to a lawnmower.

@elasticsoul

@alessandro @elasticsoul Yes, and then imagine the lawnmower outclassing the fucking car.

@jhooper

I'm sorry but I can't think of an airplane that would be less suited to our needs than the Warthog. It's the opposite of what we need by any meaningful metric. I'm not sure how you arrived to the conclusion that it outclasses the F-35 at anything other than getting views on YouTube.

@elasticsoul

@alessandro @elasticsoul Stop talking for a minute and focus on what my underlying point is: the F-35 is struggling to compete with a plane designed 50 years ago, and the manufacturer and the US government is trying to hide that fact. If you look into the F-35's development, you'll find a long history of broken promises, disappointing performance metrics, and plenty of manufacturer and US military hiding these reports.

Honestly, if the jet was any good, I don't think the US government would be trying so hard to sell them.

@jhooper

I understand the point you're trying to make - I just don't understand why you're trying to make it. The A-10 is a low-altitude ground support aircraft, which is literally diametrically opposed to what Canada needs. We're not going to be strafing infantry on Ellesmere island. We need something that can patrol huge swaths of land and has excellent sensor and network capability. The A-10 is a slow tub designed to shoot things you can see with your own eyes.

As for the issues with the F-35, yes it's had problems, but find me a military procurement project of that scale that hasn't. The fact remains that it's very well suited for our needs, and the closest comparables are either a generation behind (European jets like Gripen, Rafale, etc.) or unobtainable/undesirable (J-20, Su-57)

I'm not 100% against buying Gripens instead if we can get them ASAP, but their useful life will be shorter.

@elasticsoul

@alessandro @jhooper

I honestly think that the F-35 should be ruled out on strategic grounds. It requires maintenance that only the US can do, the US cannot be trusted to keep them in the air on Canada’s behalf, and the US is currently the country most likely to invade Canada.

@jfmezei @DavidM_yeg @su_liam @troy_frizzell

The war turned to drones because they’re the most economical and useful, not because the West wouldn’t supply jets. I agree 100% with the above posters that drones - air, land, and sea - are the future. They’re vastly more economical, pilots can be trained far more quickly and cheaply, and they can and do take out bigger, expensive hardware. Canada should be partnering with Ukraine to build this tech in Canada.

@peterbrown

You would think. However, the current US regime is very unaware. I guess that’s what happens when they’re all sociopaths.

@AnnieBuddy @pedrobizbikedu @EricLawton

100% correct. And now the Americans have done enough damage to themselves that it looks like the US Dollar is on its way out as the world’s reserve currency. The US is going to be a poorer nation for generations.

@De_Minimis

The thing is, would you trust the Americans to honour NORAD commitments themselves? Can the Americans be trusted to honour any agreements now? It seems clear the answer is no.

@elasticsoul

Those are good reasons - the big question is how likely that overt aggression from the USA is, versus against our current requirements. I don't think we're dark-skinned enough for them to go that far.

@jhooper

@assimilateborg @elasticsoul
As with Europe, he will suggest Canada impose austerity on its citizens and divert funding from public services to military.

@elasticsoul But you still had to clean your room and take out the garbage as a kid when your parents asked.