Canadas Next Fighter

[Hummingbird]

He's harping on about the Mach 1.6 speed limit imposed on the aircraft, because he's willingly forgetting that the F-16, the moment you put a fuel tank under the wings, or a payload of any worth, it drops down to that speed too, or that the much beloved Hornet only hits Mach 1.8 on a good day.

 

No? I am actually thinking about what aircraft such as the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen are capable of delivering.

 

Remember that it's about being able to outfit the aircraft in such a way that it is best tailored for a fast intercept. This means being able to ditch external tanks as well, which is not avoided during wartime.

[GGTharos]

With respect to Canada, the eurocanards are a pretty moot point. Unless there's a drastic shift, Canadian AF is pretty much aligned with US AF, and aerospace tends to follow suit. Just my 2c.

[wilky510]

Perhaps, however concerns are there from the buying countries regarding the costs of maintaining an aircraft so reliant on stealth. It's in everything from the paint/coating to the many extra complex mechanical & electrical parts added in order to carry bombs & missiles internally that are worrying to potential buyers atm.

I'm sure if the Europeans had an stealthy aircraft people wouldn't be singing this same tune, they would still be wanting the European stealthy aircraft over American Aircraft just because it's European.

 

But if people don't wanna pay the price for stealth, they are gonna find themselves in a pickle when more and more countries are able to afford S-300 variants and S-400 in decently amount of numbers. If they want the Rafale/Eurofighter just for the interceptor role, that is fine. But offensively these aircraft lack stuff the F-35 has. While the F-35 may lack at A-A compared to the Rafale and Eurofighter, these two aircraft will mostly lack in A-G to the F-35.

 

Now i think of it, the USAF would probably being doing all the first night stuff anyways for most European countries, so the F-35's fit perfectly in a war the USAF would find itself in against a near peered country...

 

But that is my personal opinion.

[Hummingbird]

I'm sure if the Europeans had an stealthy aircraft people wouldn't be singing this same tune, they would still be wanting the European stealthy aircraft over American Aircraft just because it's European.

 

But if people don't wanna pay the price for stealth, they are gonna find themselves in a pickle when more and more countries are able to afford S-300 variants and S-400 in decently amount of numbers. If they want the Rafale/Eurofighter just for the interceptor role, that is fine. But offensively these aircraft lack stuff the F-35 has. While the F-35 may lack at A-A compared to the Rafale and Eurofighter, these two aircraft will mostly lack in A-G to the F-35.

 

Now i think of it, the USAF would probably being doing all the first night stuff anyways for most European countries, so the F-35's fit perfectly in a war the USAF would find itself in against a near peered country...

 

But that is my personal opinion.

 

Well I mean with the amount of countries considering even the F-18E or upgraded F-16's, it's not really about where the aircraft is from. Which I think history also tells us is a non issue, I mean most European NATO countries have been operating primarily US designed aircraft.

 

Denmark for example have been going with US planes ever since they did away with their Spitfires and Meteors.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Goldsmack]

From my understanding one of the requirements for new aircraft for the Canadian Air Force is dual engines for safety reasons. Look how many pilots we lost due to engine flame outs at low level. Also our freaking cold winters are tough on aircraft. I would like to see Canada just upgrade our aging F-18s to super hornets. There an extremely capable aircraft and we wouldn't have to completely re train our pilots on a new aircraft, just training on the new systems. And force integration with USA and other NATO forces operating the F-18 would be smoother. The F-35 for Canada has bee a fiasco from day one, yes its a fancy new 5th gen aircraft but its not the right choice for my country...IMHO.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Goldsmack

[Tirak]

From my understanding one of the requirements for new aircraft for the Canadian Air Force is dual engines for safety reasons. Look how many pilots we lost due to engine flame outs at low level. Also our freaking cold winters are tough on aircraft. I would like to see Canada just upgrade our aging F-18s to super hornets. There an extremely capable aircraft and we wouldn't have to completely re train our pilots on a new aircraft, just training on the new systems. And force integration with USA and other NATO forces operating the F-18 would be smoother. The F-35 for Canada has bee a fiasco from day one, yes its a fancy new 5th gen aircraft but its not the right choice for my country...IMHO.

 

Engine reliability has shot up drastically, and single engine aircraft are more than reliable enough to work, even up in the far North. Keep in mind, Norway is no stranger to arctic conditions, and they'll be flying the aircraft as well. Also, keep in mind, that when it comes to engine failure, because of the preassures involved, when something does go wrong, it goes catastrophically wrong, which generally takes out both engines.

 

The Super Hornet is not an "upgrade" of the Legacy Hornet, it's a whole new aircraft. Different engines, a completely new wing, totally different avionics, there's more that's different about this aircraft than the same, you would not be "upgrading", you would be replacing, and you would be doing so for an aircraft with shorter legs, lower payload, no stealth and worse electronics. It makes no sense going forward for Canada to take a step back into gen 4, when gen 5 is right there for a fully affordable price. Weather is not an issue frankly, and I don't know where this new 'argument' has come from, but it's completely false, just take a look at the cold weather testing already done on the aircraft, and take a look at the other partners in the program.

[El Hadji]

 

Denmark for example have been going with US planes ever since they did away with their Spitfires and Meteors.

 

True, if you don't count SAAB J35 Draken...

[VincentLaw]

when something does go wrong, it goes catastrophically wrong, which generally takes out both engines.

 

It would be interesting to see a chart comparing the percentage of engine failures that lead to aircraft loss between the F-16 and F/A-18. I'd like to think that having two engines makes me safer, but it's just intuition.

[Goldsmack]

Engine reliability has shot up drastically, and single engine aircraft are more than reliable enough to work, even up in the far North. Keep in mind, Norway is no stranger to arctic conditions, and they'll be flying the aircraft as well. Also, keep in mind, that when it comes to engine failure, because of the preassures involved, when something does go wrong, it goes catastrophically wrong, which generally takes out both engines.

 

The Super Hornet is not an "upgrade" of the Legacy Hornet, it's a whole new aircraft. Different engines, a completely new wing, totally different avionics, there's more that's different about this aircraft than the same, you would not be "upgrading", you would be replacing, and you would be doing so for an aircraft with shorter legs, lower payload, no stealth and worse electronics. It makes no sense going forward for Canada to take a step back into gen 4, when gen 5 is right there for a fully affordable price. Weather is not an issue frankly, and I don't know where this new 'argument' has come from, but it's completely false, just take a look at the cold weather testing already done on the aircraft, and take a look at the other partners in the program.

 

All good points, I do love the F-35s and I have seen some statistics and also a documentary where they put the F-35 in a test freezer at -50ºc, but allot about it is still "classified". military funding has never been our governments strong point and total cost was going to be the deciding factor if we purchased the F-35s. As it stands now with the Liberals being elected our new prime minister is backing out of the deal http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-pullout-from-f-35-program-will-boost-costs-for-other-nations-by-as-much-as-1m-per-jet

 

I do believe that if we ask our military to defend this country we should be giving them the best tools for the job and our 30 year old CF-18s are showing there age. I only hope that if they do replace them, they replace them wite the best they can

Edited December 11, 2015 by Goldsmack

[will487]

I'm sure if the Europeans had an stealthy aircraft people wouldn't be singing this same tune, they would still be wanting the European stealthy aircraft over American Aircraft just because it's European.

 

But if people don't wanna pay the price for stealth, they are gonna find themselves in a pickle when more and more countries are able to afford S-300 variants and S-400 in decently amount of numbers. If they want the Rafale/Eurofighter just for the interceptor role, that is fine. But offensively these aircraft lack stuff the F-35 has. While the F-35 may [/b]lack at A-A compared to the Rafale and Eurofighter, these two aircraft will mostly lack in A-G to the F-35.

 

Now i think of it, the USAF would probably being doing all the first night stuff anyways for most European countries, so the F-35's fit perfectly in a war the USAF would find itself in against a near peered country...

 

But that is my personal opinion.

 

With the integration of platforms such as Brimstone and Paveway IV on the Typhoon I would strongly disagree :smilewink:

[Goldsmack]

you would not be "upgrading", you would be replacing, and you would be doing so for an aircraft with shorter legs,.

 

AFAIK total range between the F-18E and whats known about the F-35A is the same at 1,200nmi. But yest the overall electronics suite is vastly superior.....how much so is something I wonder. Will know when the F-35 logs some more combat hours.

[RoflSeal]

It would be interesting to see a chart comparing the percentage of engine failures that lead to aircraft loss between the F-16 and F/A-18. I'd like to think that having two engines makes me safer, but it's just intuition.

 

Not F/A-18, but in this case F-15, which is even better since they share the same engines

 

 

 

Manufacturing and design of engines nowadays is so rock solid that doubling of human error in maintenance has a bigger impact on engine failure then the engine malfunction due to a part failing

[Brisse]

Single engine fighters usually have higher reliability requirements on the engines which is taken into consideration both when constructing the engine and when maintaining it. It's not uncommon to see zero mishap rates for single engine fighter these days.

[GGTharos]

It's really not, although it doesn't quite affect Canada right away.

 

An F-18 needs to fly a lower altitude profile in the presence of AD, an F-35, not necessarily. That makes up for a lot of range.

 

What F-18 configuration gets this range? For the F-35, the combat radius is 600nm without drop tanks. Add drop tanks and you add 100nm.

 

AFAIK total range between the F-18E and whats known about the F-35A is the same at 1,200nmi. But yest the overall electronics suite is vastly superior.....how much so is something I wonder. Will know when the F-35 logs some more combat hours.

[Goldsmack]

It's really not, although it doesn't quite affect Canada right away.

 

An F-18 needs to fly a lower altitude profile in the presence of AD, an F-35, not necessarily. That makes up for a lot of range.

 

What F-18 configuration gets this range? For the F-35, the combat radius is 600nm without drop tanks. Add drop tanks and you add 100nm.

 

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

 

Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s

Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained.

[VincentLaw]

Not F/A-18, but in this case F-15, which is even better since they share the same engines

 

[images]

 

Manufacturing and design of engines nowadays is so rock solid that doubling of human error in maintenance has a bigger impact on engine failure then the engine malfunction due to a part failing

The F100 engine costs millions of dollars though, so any incident that totals an engine will be a Class A Mishap whether or not the plane could make it back to base. How many of those resulted in loss of the plane? Maybe that information is not as easy to find.

 

In a combat plane we are also concerned with things like combat damage survivability, not just reliability of the engine during routine flight.

[Goldsmack]

And another thing Canada needs to take into consideration is we have no dedicated ground attack aircraft like the USAF so we need a good multi role fighter.

[GGTharos]

So you're comparing a combat-loaded F-35's range with basically a clean hornet :)

 

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

 

Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s

Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained.

[Goldsmack]

So you're comparing a combat-loaded F-35's range with basically a clean hornet :)

 

I very well might be..the best range calculation on the F-35s clean weight range I could quickly dig up is on wiki and states:

 

• Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
  

dose not mention weapon stores. And I am only assuming that this is for the F-35A

Edited December 11, 2015 by Goldsmack

[Sweep]

Add those pylons to the Rhinos...add stores...then come back and say something about that 1,200 nmi range! :D

 

The F-35 takes the strike loadout of an F-16 or F-18, takes it a bit farther, does that while stealthy, and kicks their butt in the avionics department.

 

Did I mention it doesn't get a drag penalty for that? No? :smartass:

Edited December 11, 2015 by Sweep
Spelling errors.

[GGTharos]

The 'combat Radius' is about half of that, so I'd assume gun plus two 120's plus two JDAMs in the 2000lbs class. So it's flying clean, but has a combat payload - and yes, it is the F-35A.

 

 

As far as Canada goes, Trudeau Jr. will tell the air force what they're going to be doing, and they'll come up with requirements from there. We'll then be stuck with that for the next 40 years.

 

I very well might be..the best range calculation on the F-35s clean weight range I could quickly dig up is on wiki and states:

 

• Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
  

dose not mention weapon stores. And I am only assuming that this is for the F-35A

[Sweep]

CF-39 time.

 

RIP RCAF - 1924-201x.

[Hummingbird]

True, if you don't count SAAB J35 Draken...

 

I didn't mean that they weren't using other aircraft too, just that they started generally opting for US aircraft after the Spitfire & Meteor.

 

The Danish airforce has for a long time been operating aircraft from many different countries at the same time.

[Hummingbird]

And another thing Canada needs to take into consideration is we have no dedicated ground attack aircraft like the USAF so we need a good multi role fighter.

 

Yes, that's exactly the same dilemma that Denmark is facing as we will be scrapping/selling off all our F-16's with the arrival of our next fighter. We won't be keeping around a seperate fleet of air superiority fighters to protect our airspace.

 

Thus I am also looking forward to hearing how the F-35 does in the next real life plane on plane comparison tests. Didn't go well against a F-16 carrying bags last time, but the excuse was software limitations, so I'm very interested to see how it will do without these software limitations.

 

Atm though, with purchase and operating costs in mind, I think the best solution for Denmark probably would be the Swedish Gripen, or alternatively the Eurofighter albeit the latter is on the expensive side. IMHO it would be bonkers to go for the F-35, esp. with our financial state in mind, but since we did fund its development I think it is the most likely winner of a contract. I just hope it's not going to be another "IC-4" like scandal :doh:

Edited December 12, 2015 by Hummingbird

[vladd148]

Actual plane performance will have little impact in the Liberals decision on the replacement program. It all will essentially come down to cost, and creating Canadian jobs. It's what it's always been about in the CF.

 

-V