[LINK] "F-35 a ‘serious strategic mismatch’ for Canada’s North, retired colonel says"

[rfmcdonald]

Jeff Davis, writing in the National Post, reports on a new angle on the controversy over the purchase of F35 jets for the air force. I'd noted earlier that the estimates for cost were underestimated by ten billion dollars. Now, a former air force fleet manager suggests that the F35 isn't suited for missions in the Arctic, and that we may as well wait for the first generation of combat-ready drones.

Thoughts?

Retired colonel Paul Maillet, an aerospace engineer and former CF-18 fleet manager, said the F-35 does not meet the needs of the government’s Canada First Defence Strategy, a key pillar of which is Arctic sovereignty.

“How do you get a single engine, low-range, low-payload, low-manoeuvrability aircraft that is being optimized for close air support … to operate effectively in the North?” he asked.

Maillet called the F-35 a “serious strategic mismatch” to Canada’s military needs, and suggested the Royal Canadian Air Force would be better off purchasing a fleet of F-18 E/F fighters.

Maillet, who twice ran as a federal Green party candidate, said the billions the government is planning to spend on F-35s would be better used on schools and health care.

[. . .]

The trend lines in aerial combat, Maillet said, point to manned aircraft becoming a thing of the past. Unmanned drone technology is progressing at a staggering pace, he said, and they will soon be capable of air-to-air dogfights.

Given the pace of drone development, Maillet said, the F-35 could be the last major manned fighter project. With new drone fighters not too far off, he said, Canada could hold off on a major purchase — and extend the life of the aging CF-18s — until these come to market.

“We could do the skip-a-generation thing,” he said.