86
Stephen Fuhr was mocked for opposing the purchase of F-35s. Now he's in charge of Canada's defence procurement (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (12 children)

If we're worried about them, anyway.

The tricky thing is that, if we're fighting someone else, like Russia, the F-35 just is the best all-around plane. Heck, "all-around" might not even be needed, there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (5 children)

    Iran shot an F35.

    https://www.trtworld.com/article/98473554ec5e

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/23/has-iran-brought-down-an-unkillable-us-f-35-jet

    The whole point of the F35 was "youre dead before you even detect it". The fact that the US hasn't refuted the loss indicates to me that it did happen and it wasn't a fluke.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (4 children)

    Since I already got a reply about this, I'll just copy-paste.

    They hit one, out of how many that have been openly flying over Iran, day in and day out.

    Probably, it managed to fly low over the one tiny patch of land that had a shoulder launched missile operator on it, and did so in broad daylight. That day, remove any of those variables, and the survivability goes from 99.9% to 100%, without even being careful.

    It has a radar section like a large ball bearing, which is tiny, but not nothing, and not as small as a more "devoted" stealth aircraft. And, it's not fucking invisible, you can still see it with your naked eyes! Literally impossible to shoot down was never the bar anyone set. Close to impossible, it achieves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (3 children)

    "youre dead before you even detect it"

    Literally impossible to shoot down was never the bar anyone set.

    Agreed. Dunno why you're arguing that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

    What, aren't those two mutually exclusive? It sees you first, or you see it first.

    If it always kills you before you see it, regardless of any measure of luck on your part, you can't shoot it down. So, another way to put this, is it only kills you before you see it most of the time. And, almost all of the time vs. Iran specifically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 21 hours ago* (1 child)

    Something could be impossible to shoot down because its too fast/maneuverable. Or impervious to damage. That same thing could also be completely incapable of killing you. Maybe don't lazily copy and paste replies when you don't understand the point you're replying to.

    If your stance is that an F35 getting shot down doesn't matter; you can go ahead and have that opinion. I'm not gonna waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 19 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

    I thought about including an aside about deep bunkers (impervious to damage (that's a single F-35 can dish out, since you're pretending you don't understand context)), but that's not really relevant if you're planning to shoot back.

    Too fast to hit straight up doesn't exist; even hypersonics can be intercepted, and they're already at the materials limit of what can push through air without breaking up. Higher up, satellite vs. satellite is of course a thing, as well. The advantage of speed is just getting where you're going faster.

    This speed vs. detection vs. firepower logic determines military tactics in every era, BTW. Right now, most things can be easily detected, and basically everything can be destroyed. It's the things that are still hard to detect that are winning the day, like the F-35 or drones. Or maybe the Gripen, if it's in and out of the air fast and unpredictably enough.

    Yes, I guess the F-35 could be completely empty and unloaded. That was even in the comment at first, but I edited it out, because anyone would get that's not typically how you go into battle. And no, getting the same question responding to the same comment, and then giving the same answer, is not lazy. What, does your highness require it hand-typed? (FWIW, not checking if the question has been asked and answered isn't high effort)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    The only one threatening us is the country trying to sell us their weapons.

    Russias is in too deep in Ukraine and trying to push into other nato nations. For Russia to get to Canada, they pretty much need to go through Alaska anyways. I’m sure Trumpkin would allow it. I don’t know that the rest of the U.S. military would. At this point though, who knows.

    I’m worried about the fascist ugly Americans more so than Russia.

    And also, hasn’t Iran proved that they can knock down the f-35s?

    https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/19/politics/f-35-damage-iran-war

    Again, the only single country on the planet threatening Canada is the country trying to sell us the weapons.

    Fuck America.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    Every stealth plane can be targeted if you have an actual visual on it and can send out heat seekers. The point is that they typically can operate much farther away and don't get seen. But if you have thousands of flights you can just randomly get lucky and spot one. Losing a single plane doesn't mean anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    And also, hasn’t Iran proved that they can knock down the f-35s?

    They hit one, out of how many that have been openly flying over Iran, day in and day out.

    Probably, it managed to fly low over the one tiny patch of land that had a shoulder launched missile operator on it, and did so in broad daylight. That day, remove any of those variables, and the survivability goes from 99.9% to 100%, without even being careful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent