76
$30,000,000,000 Question: Canada’s F-35 Debate Seems Paralyzed (www.19fortyfive.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived link

  • While 16 F-35 fighters remain contractually committed for delivery starting this year, the full 88-jet procurement is stalled amidst trade friction with the Trump administration.

  • Rising program costs—now estimated at $30 billion—have reopened the door for Saab’s JAS 39 Gripen E.

  • The Gripen offers superior industrial benefits, including 12,600 domestic jobs and Arctic-optimized maintenance.

  • Ottawa must now balance the F-35’s unmatched NORAD interoperability against the Gripen’s economic sovereignty as the aging CF-18 Hornet fleet reaches its structur

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Modern "stealth" aircraft like the F35 uses split-ring resonator patterns in the skin of the aircraft. This is much more durable than the iron spheres suspended in a top coat that the F-22 and older aircraft use. (There's a reason why the F-22 can't be left out in the rain). The problem is that the resonator pattern is highly dependent on radar frequency. So yeah, the Iranians may very well have found radar frequencies that aren't absorbed very well by the F-35.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    The details are classified, but just a look at the visible design and common sense about if the engineers were dumb will tell you they didn't only pay attention to a few frequencies. The coating isn't only (a variety of) split-ring resonators either, it sounds like there is a chemical component of some kind.

    From what I've heard, any frequencies where they're weak will be very low ones, which both require bigger, more obvious equipment and are less precise. And even then it might be a matter of a basketball-sized signature rather than a golf ball-sized one, and will be somewhat directional.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Sure, but the rest of the sky (AKA outer space) is non-reflective, so how do you get your negative return back?

    This falls in the "why don't you just" category of talking about fields you don't understand. Sure, there's an actual good idea you're moving towards, but it's kind of clear you don't know what you don't know.

    After all, Boeing keeps having their planes drop out of the sky.

    It's not a Boeing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)