tldr: why not just use drones.
We need both fighters and drones.
Human self-importance.
We think we’re magic, despite the fact we aren’t built for high g dogfights at all.
Kind of the same reason us being space colonizers is a pipe dream at this stage in our civilization. We can get a dozen highly trained peak human specimens to grow potatoes on Mars as a symbol, and I’m all for that, but not regular people. One mistake everybody dead, one cabin fever victim in the right position everybody dead. We literally can’t even care for the almost infinitely forgiving habitat we evolved out of that’s perfectly suited to our biology, and all that would require is stop actively, recklessly fucking it up.
Modern air combat isn’t about dogfights anymore. A plane like the F-35 is an asset in the air because of its sensor suite way more than because of its ability to deploy ordnance. It’ll let us patrol our massive airspace much more effectively than the 5-6 operational CF-18s we currently have.
Yes, drones will be important, but for long-range combat they’ll get used in conjunction with manned aircraft in the air. The F-35 is a formidable platform for that. Tomorrow’s air combat will probably consist of squadrons of autonomous drones under the command of a manned aircraft flying with them in formation.
tldr: why not just use drones.
Exactly, as mentioned in the article, manned warplanes are mostly a thing of the past in modern war.
They said that when the Avro Arrow was scrapped. There’s been at least 6 more fighter jets built since then!
Remind me how far (high) a drone can be from a good radio repeater and still be controlled?
Yeah. Thought so.
There are many types of drones, like missiles… <sheesh!>
Remind me how many G’s can a human sustain for longer than 30 seconds? We’re building planes that are capable of doing things that would kill their pilots on a regular basis. Our soft, squishy bodies are the biggest limit in terms of maneuverability of the aircraft at this point.
A signal jammer and there goes your drones.
It’s strength is that it is a technological marvel.
It’s weakness is that it is a technological marvel.
Canada does not have a massive military budget. It cannot support such a stupendously expensive piece of kit. And since Canada is not generally in the position of being an imperialistic aggressor (at least, nowhere near as much or as frequently as the U.S.), we simply don’t have such a burning need for a first strike aircraft.
Plus, as the second largest country by geography on the planet, Canada needs a lot of aircraft to effectively patrol and protect her airspace.
Canada would be better served by utilizing 4th gen fighters that are not only proven platforms with high degrees of reliability, but for which ten aircraft can be fielded for a single F-35.
Because as Germany discovered in WWII, quality does not win wars… quantity does. You put 10 Shermans against a single Panzer, and sure, that Panzer will easily take out 8 of them. But by the time it does, one or both of the remaining Shermans will have landed a killing shot against the Panzer. And if you can field 10 or more Shermans for the cost of a single Panzer, it would be financial and strategic stupidity to choose the Panzer over the Sherman.
