I'm a proponent of a strong military and not naive to what the future may bring for a country with rich northern resources but with little in the way to reenforce our claims to sovereignty if necessary. But F-35's ....don't see the necessity.
Suggesting other modern attack aircraft are unsuitable for Canadas fighter role suggests that other NATO allies with their Typhoons or the USA with the FA-18 E/F "Super" is behind the times ? Hogwash
Not to play an armchair general, but Canadian military strategists should be looking at introducing a mixed portfolio of multi-role fighters and ground attack aircraft for the future. The FA-18 Super Hornet and A-10's or Harrier II's would offer more for less. Harrier operators will rue the day when they retire them in favour of the F-35B's, still more than two years from delivery assuming no further delays. The USA has claimed that although the F-35B will replace Navy / Marine aircraft, the A-10 will not be replaced, given the superiority of the A-10 in it's role as a ground attack aircraft. Not bad for late 60's design.
RickW - 12 years ago
Proponents of the F-35's say we need them - but seldom say WHY and for what reason other than some nebulous "to support NATO" operations. But as the Arctic region appears to be the next potential confrontation zone, what good do so-called "fifth generation" aircraft do there? How do "boots on the ground" get up there to do the real work of defending Canadian interests? Certainly not by stealth fighters.
I'm a proponent of a strong military and not naive to what the future may bring for a country with rich northern resources but with little in the way to reenforce our claims to sovereignty if necessary. But F-35's ....don't see the necessity.
Suggesting other modern attack aircraft are unsuitable for Canadas fighter role suggests that other NATO allies with their Typhoons or the USA with the FA-18 E/F "Super" is behind the times ? Hogwash
Not to play an armchair general, but Canadian military strategists should be looking at introducing a mixed portfolio of multi-role fighters and ground attack aircraft for the future. The FA-18 Super Hornet and A-10's or Harrier II's would offer more for less. Harrier operators will rue the day when they retire them in favour of the F-35B's, still more than two years from delivery assuming no further delays. The USA has claimed that although the F-35B will replace Navy / Marine aircraft, the A-10 will not be replaced, given the superiority of the A-10 in it's role as a ground attack aircraft. Not bad for late 60's design.
Proponents of the F-35's say we need them - but seldom say WHY and for what reason other than some nebulous "to support NATO" operations. But as the Arctic region appears to be the next potential confrontation zone, what good do so-called "fifth generation" aircraft do there? How do "boots on the ground" get up there to do the real work of defending Canadian interests? Certainly not by stealth fighters.