AVCANADA

But why is the information "sensitive"? The Russians make better aircraft, and I'm sure they know it, so who does it need to be kept secret from?!

To do that effectively, you need to be ready to face current and future threat. Yes, the Super Hornet could face the current threat, but definitely not the future threat. At this stage, the JSF is the only aircraft capable of meeting this requirement. How the higher ups made up that decision is not for open forums because of the sensitive nature of the information. Regular Joe doesn't need to know every "why".

As far as threat assessments are concerned, they are here on the internet, in the form of the Joint Chiefs world security assessment, or whatever the document is called.

Aux, you seem to defend the government's decision as if your job depended on it. Kind of hard to think outside the box, when you're in it.

Just to think that the bulk of the air warfare here, in Iraq, and in Libya is carried out with Tornados, F-15s F-16s, and Mirages and Grippens. Where are the F-22s, B-1s, etc...

Where are the F-22s, B-1s, etc...

Canada does not not need a mothballed, or grounded fleet for its defense. The submarines are one exemple.

My point is that it is important at this stage not to follow blindly the US into technical banruptcy, while increasing spending on defense. It shows a complete lack of care for the country, and its taxpayers.

My point is that it is important at this stage not to follow blindly the US into technical banruptcy, while increasing spending on defense. It shows a complete lack of care for the country, and its taxpayers.

Is the F35, or any other fighter for that matter, an incredible piece of technology? Sure it is. But given what I've seen out in our second most recent war, it's entirely the wrong place to be spending this money even within our military - there are just so many needs that should take precedent. Only my reasonably informed opinion of course.

but I think your overall opinion of fighters comes from a relatively narrow perspective given where you are.

Fighters provide a rapid projection of military force to pretty much anywhere, and I think you will agree Canada has a very large "anywhere" to attend to. Obviously we can't adequately do it all on our own which makes membership in mutual defense treaties like NATO essential to Canada.

STL

We could discuss this for what to me would be several enjoyable hours. The forum is not anywhere close to adequate so I won't even try. Maybe someday we'll meet up on a patio somewhere...

...
Just to think that the bulk of the air warfare here, in Iraq, and in Libya is carried out with Tornados, F-15s F-16s, and Mirages and Grippens. Where are the F-22s, B-1s, etc...
...

Obviously we can't adequately do it all on our own which makes membership in mutual defense treaties like NATO essential to Canada. In our most recent activity in support of NATO our fighters are exactly what was required and they seem to have achieved the objective both militarily and politically.

The Gov't of Canada is no longer interested in listening to its citizens, much less anyone who disagrees with it - they will do as they wish, something they've demonstrated numerous times now.

Maybe you are right and the F 35 is the best choice for Canada, but I think a more fulsome discussion is order before we commit so much money.........

Funny thing, if this was actually true, the Conservatives wouldn't get that majority last election. The JSF purchase was clearly written in their party platform. Seems to me the only people who disagree with this purchase are liberal voters with sour grapes.



You know what a colossal waste of money is? The CBC. This atrocity costs $1billion to run annually, just imagine what the Army could do with that extra money.

F-35s face communication problems in Arctic

Canada's new multibillion-dollar stealth fighters are expected to arrive without the built-in capacity to communicate from the country's most northerly regions — a gap the air force is trying to close.

A series of briefings given to the country's top air force commander last year expressed concern that the F-35's radio and satellite communications gear may not be as capable as that of the current CF-18s, which recently went through an extensive modernization.

Military aircraft operating in the high Arctic rely almost exclusively on satellite communications, where a pilot's signal is beamed into space and bounced back down to a ground station.

The F-35 Lightning will eventually have the ability to communicate with satellites, but the software will not be available in the initial production run, said a senior Lockheed Martin official.
It is expected to be added to the aircraft when production reaches its fourth phase in 2019, but that is not guaranteed because research is still underway.

"That hasn't all been nailed down yet," said the official. "As you can imagine there are a lot of science projects going on, exploring what is the best . . . capability, what satellites will be available."

Additionally, Canada's request to have the upgrade placed in the fourth phase will compete with software changes sought by other countries. Norway, for example, wants to use its own missiles on the F-35 rather than U.S.-made weapons.

Communications in Arctic a 'challenge'

Defending the Arctic is one of the Harper government's key justifications for buying the aircraft, which are estimated to cost between $16 and $30 billion, including long-term maintenance.

A Defence Department spokesman denied that the F-35's communications suite will be less effective than that of CF-18s, but acknowledged that so-called beyond-line-of-sight communications is a concern.

"Communications in the Arctic represents a specific challenge to all aircraft due to lack of satellite coverage in the north," said Evan Koronewski in an email response. "Canada is working closely with the other partner nations to ensure Canadian operational requirements for communications in the Arctic are met."

Air force planners recognized the problem last year and are "considering a back-up," said an April 2010 briefing.

A study is looking at whether an external communications pod can be installed on the F-35.

The sophisticated pods, which are carried by the CF-18s, were purchased as part of the $2.6-billion fleet upgrade, which began in 2000.

The briefing to the chief of air staff noted that installing such pods could be made more affordable if other countries participated.

The communications problem is just one of several technical issues the air force is working on.

National Defence has also asked the U.S. manufacturer whether it's possible to install a different air-to-air refuelling system on Canadian F-35s.

Sure sounds like a liberal project to me.

Adding to your point, please do not forget that it was the Liberal government who got us involved with the F35 program. But go figure, the aircraft is NOW the Antichrist in their eyes.

A plane without an engine.

A plane without integrated inflight refueling.

and no inter-nato communication capable radio's.

And no idea's about the final price

Although the other obvious weakness's of that plane should be discussed behind closed doors and not on a public forum

But Aux, wouldnt you be a little uncomfortable doing an intercept of a Russian Bear in the high arctic without any radio communications available to you?