106
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
106 points (98.2% liked)
Canada
11512 readers
916 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Anmore (BC)
- Burnaby (BC)
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- East Gwillimbury (ON)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kingston (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Niagara Falls (ON)
- Niagara-on-the-Lake (ON)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Squamish (BC)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Whistler (BC)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- Buy Canadian
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Canadian Skincare
- Churning Canada
- Quebec Finance
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos (Canadian video media)
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Here's the source that previous poster failed to include for this part: https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/german-policymakers-concerned-american-kill-switch-disable-f35
That article is largely a pile of meaningless sensationalism with very little in the way of meaningful claims. All of it more or less boils down to this;
This is a claim that's been repeated a bunch in the armchair general circuit, but without any of the actual context, and mangled beyond recognition from what the original sources say. ALIS cannot "ground" a plane in the sense of "Prevent it from taking off at the press of a button." It's a logistics management system. All it does is track parts orders. The US could shut people out of it, which would be a massive pain in the ass, but it wouldn't actually prevent planes from flying.
Here's a source that actually digs into a little better: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/04/27/could-connectivity-failure-ground-f-35-it-s-complicated/
First, some context (from the article) on what ALIS actually is:
When the previous poster's quote source talks about the mission planning system, this is what they're referring to (I'm going to skip right past their assertion that the kill switch "is more than just a rumour" because the article presents this claim with absolutely zero evidence, context, or expansion; it's just thrown out there and treated as gospel truth. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence).
Anyway, from the article I cited;
Emphasis mine. ALIS cannot "ground" planes, it can only make it harder to maintain them. And only to the extent that it's already hard to maintain existing planes like our CF-18s. This is a solved problem. We know how to do this. It's not a magic kill switch, it can't shut anything off. It's just an inventory management system.
You claim this is a "ground-based system", but that is not true according to this description:
"the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) ... is a router designed to fit inside of an F-35’s travel pod that has the capability to connect to a hardline network or satellite internet, which allows them to transmit the F-35's data simultaneously to many remote bands and regions"
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/7342014/autonomic-logistics-information-system
So while the analysis of the data happens on the ground, ALIS is also very much inside the plane and monitors its systems in real-time:
"ALIS receives Health Reporting Codes while the F-35 is still in flight"
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/alis/CS00086-55%20(ALIS%20Product%20Card).pdf
Yet you claim "all it does is track parts orders."
Care to explain why you have omitted these basic facts while defending Canada's purchase of the F-35s?
Ground based. This doesn't exclude it having components onboard the aircraft.
And yes, fundamentally, tracking inventory and maintenance requirements is all it does. I apologize if I oversimplified the details a little too much, but I'm trying to keep things readable and not get bogged down in details, and it wasn't relevant to my point. And if you'd thought about it a little longer you'd quickly realise that it's not relevant to whatever point you seem to be trying to make either.
ALIS includes a component that is carried aboard the plane and provides telemetry. Fact freely granted.
And entirely irrelevant to the notion I was addressing. The fact that ALIS transmits information from the craft is not germane to the point that it cannot be used to affect the operability of the craft - and that's according to the people who actually use and maintain these systems. I'm not making these claims; the experts are.
But none of that occurred to you because you are so desperate to try to find some kind of conspiracy theory here. To the point where even bothering to write this reply is pointless, because I can only assume that you've decided that I'm some kind of deep cover CIA agent here on direct orders from Steven Miller.
It is fucking exhausting talking to you people. I genuinely cannot comprehend the insane degree to which any tangential detail gets fantasized and catastrophized into an elaborate work of Tom Clancy fan fiction.
"You people"
Hey look, I never made any claims other than pointing out that you were clearly intentionally being misleading.
Anyway: would you fly a plane if you could not verify that it was in working order?