• Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 months ago

      Until someone comes up with a very compelling anti-drone countermeasure, drones are basically the ideal weapon for a battlefield. Cheap, mobile, can loiter, good recon, etc.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’ve wondered about just SAMs and MANPADs as an alternative to any new fighter jet. We can’t really trust the F-35 and the alternatives (the Gripen E) might not be survivable, depending on a bunch of data I don’t have.

      Sure, they can’t be used offensively, but that’s not the main thing I worry about in the near future.

    • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Drones can’t defend the Arctic. In fact they’d be fairly useless to most of Canada that doesn’t sit within the 49th-50th parallel.

      • HertzDentalBar
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        You know you can launch satilites that cover the arctic right? Or you making some claim about the cold and the batteries.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I mean, -60 is extremely unusual even in the high arctic, but the point stands at “just” -40.

            It’s usually more a matter of designers not bothering with severe cold conditions than any fundamental issue. In a pinch, I imagine just getting an FPV drone up to temperature in a tent or sleeping bag would give you a bit of range. For more, you’d need to insulate it and add a little internal heater, but that seems doable.

            Most of what happens in the arctic is going to involve long-distance gas (or nuclear) powered equipment anyway. It’s big and sparsely populated.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Sort of? Existing software isn’t smart enough to fight a battle on it’s own, and electronic warfare is a real thing that makes communications hard. In a full-blown war situation there’s appeal in having a human being in a cockpit close to possible targets.

      The things we worry about in Canada are more specific, though. For example, we probably don’t need long-range bombers of our own.

  • breezeblock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    The real concern is not “which aircraft to buy” — its “in 20 years will Canada be able to even arm itself in a world of disrupted supply chains?”

    Agreed that drones are tactically important, but tanks and fighters ships are strategically important, and will never go out of style.

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      No more than what we’re spending on the F35. We could design 10 new aircraft for that price

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      The cost isn’t actually much higher for the Gripen proposal this is about, although I’m not sure if that leaves things like the actual factories out.