frosti wrote:CSk3RampBOY wrote:What I don't understand is, how can we possibly patrol the arctic with the F35???? Single engine and less range, or at least that's what they advertise.
What is wrong with "patrolling" the arctic with one engine? How many cases have you heard of our CF-18's lose an engine while "patrolling". Less range compared to what? The F35 has more internal fuel capacity than our CF-18's fully jugged up.
Just to clear something up, we don't send fighters up north to patrol a.k.a, fly around for nothing. NORAD is there for a reason, when it sees a threat they will alert the proper fighter base installations.
How can the F35 intercept the new Su35 BM when the Russians continue to invade our airspace? Its a long way to the arctic from Cold Lake.
The Pak Fa or T50, may be a few years away from joining the Air Force. But this baby is a real threat!
Russians don't invade our airspace, they are always within the international boundaries. Please don't suggest that there is a threat of Russian fighters coming over the Arctic Ocean to start a fight, I'm not going to explain why that is such a ridiculous idea. There are military installations much further north for fighters to operate out of besides Cold Lake, anyone with access to Google Earth can figure out what they are.
I wonder how many F16s have been lost to bird strikes? Can you put the F35 in that same category? What about in a combat scenario, where the only engines gets shot up over the north? The F35 carries more fuel, but does it have the same range? IS the F35 a proven and reliable design? Look at the F22 program, the aircraft was just plagued with critical failures. There's even a case where the F22 almost got lost over the Pacific one the way to Gaum when its navigation system crashed. The F35, as with most new programs, will have their issues. Why can't we go with a proven design?
So you claim that the reason the armed forces opted for the F35 was based on the opinions of the experts.
C'Mon, you and I know that a large of part of the decision making is purely political and economic. The benefits of purchasing the F35 is great for Canadian industries. Did the experts look at all the facts? Boeing complained last year that the Canadian forces ignored the Stealth properties of the Super Hornet.
Your missing the point! What's the purpose of the military installations in the north, when the jets spend almost all their time in Cold Lake/Bagotville. The F35s are most likely still going to have to take a journey up north.
The Russians are not out to bomb cities anymore, they're out for the natural resources in the north. To this day, they don't recognize much of our territory in the north belonging to Canada, as a sovereign state. Over the past year, i've read two Moscow pravda articles regarding the Canadian northern borders as being, "disputed".
So if NORAD dispatches F35s to the north to intercept another Bear, how effective will the F35 be? What if the Russians start taking a more aggressive role and start escorting the Bears with two SU35BMs.
If the Russians are not invading our airspace, they are surely coming close on a regular basis! How do you explain this?
