I have seen plenty of tanks and ships crippled or destroyed by drones…

Deep pockets and a spine

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

And time. Don’t forget time.

drones. If Canada should sink funding into anything, it should be that.

ECM says what?

Fibre optic drone says hi.