Canadas Next Fighter

[GGTharos]

Outfitted for a pure intercept role armed with 2x AIM-120's & 2x AIM-9's, the F-18 will hit Mach 1.8 though, and likely accelerate faster.

 

Infact I believe the F-18 will do Mach 1.8 with a centerline tank even?

 

The downside is the range of course, but I believe the F-18E goes some way to address this?

 

With a centerline tank you'll be lucky to hit 1.4.

 

In any case, that's all irrelevant for Canada since we also need those jets to come home - they're quite likely stuck flying subsonic.

 

The F-18E has no significant range advantage over the F-35, AFAIK.

 

 

Yeah for airsuperiority I do think maneuverability will still be a factor, just as performance. I personally wouldn't ever trust even the majority of engagements to end whilst still in the BVR, esp. if multiple aircraft are involved.

Maneuverability is not an issue for air superiority IMHO. Technology, numbers and training (mutual support) play a larger role. You need significantly superior maneuverability if you fail all of the others, or have parity.

As for engagements, we're well out of the swarms of WW2 fighters, and BVR gives you a lot of options to keep the fight distant.

It's just not really a black and white thing.

[Sweep]

With a centerline tank you'll be lucky to hit 1.4.

 

In any case, that's all irrelevant for Canada since we also need those jets to come home - they're quite likely stuck flying subsonic.

 

The F-18E has no significant range advantage over the F-35, AFAIK.

 

 

Maneuverability is not an issue for air superiority IMHO. Technology, numbers and training (mutual support) play a larger role. You need significantly superior maneuverability if you fail all of the others, or have parity.

As for engagements, we're well out of the swarms of WW2 fighters, and BVR gives you a lot of options to keep the fight distant.

It's just not really a black and white thing.

 

I can't rep you again... :(

[Exorcet]

Adding to this that 4.5++ gen fighters such as the Gripen, Rafale & Eurofighter are all more than capable enough in the A-G role that they will be very useful when we need to assist our NATO allies fighting terrorists abroad, and I think we would be better off with one of these.

 

Yeah, the level of adversary you intend to face off against should make a difference. I see the F-35 being attractive if you want to have the best chance of beating an advanced adversary, but if you are just concerned with taking a supporting role in a low intensity conflict, the F-35 could be overkill.

 

I think that applies for air to air as well as air to ground though. As a traditional interceptor, the EF-2000 sounds like a strong F-35 competitor. I can't say with certainty how much an intercept flight will favor raw speed over stealth though. The F-35 won't be the fastest plane in the sky but it could potentially push intercept ranges out further and do the most damage to an incoming enemy flight owing to a first shot advantage.

 

Yeah for airsuperiority I do think maneuverability will still be a factor, just as performance. I personally wouldn't ever trust even the majority of engagements to end whilst still in the BVR, esp. if multiple aircraft are involved.

I agree that maneuverability does play a role, and it would have been ideal if the report from the F-35 vs F-16 dogfight was nothing but praise. However I really don't think that test is an indicator of overall combat performance.

 

You don't need to end the fight in BVR to win, if half of the opposing force is destroyed before they find the F-35's, that's potentially a better situation than an even number of enemies and say Typhoons going head to head.

[Hummingbird]

With a centerline tank you'll be lucky to hit 1.4.

 

In any case, that's all irrelevant for Canada since we also need those jets to come home - they're quite likely stuck flying subsonic.

 

The F-18E has no significant range advantage over the F-35, AFAIK.

 

 

Maneuverability is not an issue for air superiority IMHO. Technology, numbers and training (mutual support) play a larger role. You need significantly superior maneuverability if you fail all of the others, or have parity.

As for engagements, we're well out of the swarms of WW2 fighters, and BVR gives you a lot of options to keep the fight distant.

It's just not really a black and white thing.

 

 

The centerline tank takes off 0.4 Mach? Sounds like a bit much. Remember I'm talking no wing pylons added, in a pure interceptor config like that of the Swiss F-18C's.

 

 

 

 

 

I can understand that it would only reach 1.4 with two wing bags, but the CLT blends in pretty well:

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

Danish fast intercept F-16's:

 

 

[will487]

Would it be possible to just upgrade the airframes to super hornet, or is it necessary to buy a whole new airframe.?

[Exorcet]

Would it be possible to just upgrade the airframes to super hornet, or is it necessary to buy a whole new airframe.?

CF-18? The two airframes are totally different.

[Ktulu2]

Would it be possible to just upgrade the airframes to super hornet, or is it necessary to buy a whole new airframe.?

 

CF-18s can't be upgraded. The airframe is REALLY overstressed and that's the main reason why we need a new bird. heck it even started cracking :/

[GGTharos]

I might be remembering my charts incorrectly ... yup, I am:

 

https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-200.pdf

 

Page 381

Edited December 13, 2015 by GGTharos

[Sweep]

Are we supposed to be able to read that? Its throwing an error for me... :(

 

Edit: works now, thanks GG.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Sweep

[Seaeagle]

Basically I think the F-35 is going to fit the bill for the US as it will no doubt be impressive in the strike role, however the limited performance in the interceptor/air superiority role is what concerns me regarding other smaller nations picking this aircraft. Esp. nations such as Denmark which will be relying on just one type to carry out all three roles whilst the most important is actually safeguarding our own airspace - and primarily via fast intercept capability.

 

Agree.

 

Adding to this that 4.5++ gen fighters such as the Gripen, Rafale & Eurofighter are all more than capable enough in the A-G role that they will be very useful when we need to assist our NATO allies fighting terrorists abroad, and I think we would be better off with one of these.

 

Of those only the Eurofighter is left in the tender - Rafale is a non-starter(Dassault refused to enter from the very beginning) and the Gripen was withdrawn last year.

 

The options left are: F-35, F/A-18E and Eurofighter.

 

Personally I would choose the Gripen simply due to cost and the fact that the NG version comes with a very advanced AESA radar. Also the STOL capability is a nice little extra trait for a small country like ours.

 

Personally I would choose the SuperHornet simply due to cost and the fact that it comes with advanced AESA radar and huge ordinance range. Our country is small in terms of defence budget, but not in terms of area - remember we are also responsible for the defence of the commonwealth(Greenland and Faroe Islands) and to some extend Iceland(via defence agreement).

[PiedDroit]

[...]Of those only the Eurofighter is left in the tender - Rafale is a non-starter(Dassault refused to enter from the very beginning) and the Gripen was withdrawn last year.

IIRC SAAB withdrew it's proposal because the requirement where biased toward F-35 and they didn't want to waste their time.

I think they will make a proposal if a new process with new requirements is started.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newssaab-withdraws-from-rcafs-cf-18-fighter-replacement-programme

Edited December 13, 2015 by PiedDroit
reference

[Brisse]

and to some extend Iceland(via defence agreement).

 

Reminds me of:

 

[Hummingbird]

Personally I would choose the SuperHornet simply due to cost and the fact that it comes with advanced AESA radar and huge ordinance range. Our country is small in terms of defence budget, but not in terms of area - remember we are also responsible for the defence of the commonwealth(Greenland and Faroe Islands) and to some extend Iceland(via defence agreement).

 

Thing is SAAB is (or was) offering the Gripen NG, or E/F series, which sports an even newer AESA radar, increased internal fuel capacity and a greatly improved max loadout etc.

 

Considering this as well as the Gripen's performance advantage and small size which will also reduce maintenance time & cost, and I don't see the F-18E being a better solution for Denmark.

[Seaeagle]

IIRC SAAB withdrew it's proposal because the requirement where biased toward F-35 and they didn't want to waste their time.

I think they will make a proposal if a new process with new requirements is started.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newssaab-withdraws-from-rcafs-cf-18-fighter-replacement-programme

 

Yes but I was referring to the Danish tender(in response to Hummingbird).

 

Sorry for the confusion(and off-topic).

[Hummingbird]

[Seaeagle]

Thing is SAAB is (or was) offering the Gripen NG, or E/F series, which sports an even newer AESA radar, increased internal fuel capacity and a greatly improved max loadout etc.

 

Considering this as well as the Gripen's performance advantage and small size which will also reduce maintenance time & cost, and I don't see the F-18E being a better solution for Denmark.

 

Well thats a matter of opinion. The point is that possible alternatives are the F-35 and Eurofighter.....the Gripen isn't(anymore).

[Hummingbird]

Well thats a matter of opinion. The point is that possible alternatives are the F-35 and Eurofighter.....the Gripen isn't(anymore).

 

Indeed, I am hoping that SAAB will return as a tender though.

 

If not the Eurofighter is the best choice but probably not the one which will be made considering how our government has bought into the F-35 project.

[Brisse]

If not the Eurofighter is the best choice but probably not the one which will be made considering how our government has bought into the F-35 project.

 

Reminds me of the Norwegian tender a few years ago where F-35 was competing against Gripen. Norway and their defence industry was involved with development of the F-35 beforehand and there's no doubt this had provided many job opportunities for Norwegian citizens. Also, they have close political relations to the US which they want to keep. In the end, the F-35 won obviously. Many people believe it was decided beforehand, and the only reason Gripen was invited to compete was so that they could get a better deal on the F-35's.

[Seaeagle]

Indeed, I am hoping that SAAB will return as a tender though.

 

I think its too late for that - as far as I can tell the bids are in and we are just awaiting the final decision(early 2016).

 

If not the Eurofighter is the best choice but probably not the one which will be made considering how our government has bought into the F-35 project.

 

You really don't like the SH huh? :D . But anyway, I think you are right about the F-35....unfortunately.

[Hummingbird]

I think its too late for that - as far as I can tell the bids are in and we are just awaiting the final decision(early 2016).

 

Yeah I fear the same, but we'll see.

 

You really don't like the SH huh? :D . But anyway, I think you are right about the F-35....unfortunately.

 

Oh I do, and definitely prefer it over the F-35 due mainly to cost, it's just I think the Gripen or Eurofighter would be a better choice considering our needs for a fast air superiority fighter to safeguard our airspace.

 

The Gripen NG is ideal considering our needs IMHO, which is why it bothers me that its out of the competition.

[Seaeagle]

Many people believe it was decided beforehand, and the only reason Gripen was invited to compete was so that they could get a better deal on the F-35's.

 

....and that there had to be a tender(by law).

[Hummingbird]

Reminds me of the Norwegian tender a few years ago where F-35 was competing against Gripen. Norway and their defence industry was involved with development of the F-35 beforehand and there's no doubt this had provided many job opportunities for Norwegian citizens. Also, they have close political relations to the US which they want to keep. In the end, the F-35 won obviously. Many people believe it was decided beforehand, and the only reason Gripen was invited to compete was so that they could get a better deal on the F-35's.

 

Yeah the same is probably the case here, which is why I was against the development funding as its binding in its own right.

[Hummingbird]

Looking at the F-18E performance charts that are publically available I am abit puzzled by the level flight envelope figures.

 

A speed of Mach 1.6 is listed with 2x AIM-9's + 2x AIM-120's, a load out with which the aircraft should be capable of Mach 1.8? Considering the lack of specific data in the rest of the manual (it is rather vague in comparison to manuals for earlier aircraft, and probably for good reason), I think the Mach 1.6 figures represents an aircraft equipped with the std. 4 wing pylons as well.

 

4x missiles loaded at the wing tips and fuselage body simply doesn't take away 0.2 Mach in speed.

[Basher54321]

Looking at the F-18E performance charts that are publically available I am abit puzzled by the level flight envelope figures.

 

A speed of Mach 1.6 is listed with 2x AIM-9's + 2x AIM-120's, a load out with which the aircraft should be capable of Mach 1.8? Considering the lack of specific data in the rest of the manual (it is rather vague in comparison to manuals for earlier aircraft, and probably for good reason), I think the Mach 1.6 figures represents an aircraft equipped with the std. 4 wing pylons as well.

 

4x missiles loaded at the wing tips and fuselage body simply doesn't take away 0.2 Mach in speed.

 

Its under M1.6 on the charts - I thought the FA-18EF had a clean top end of M1.6 so that could be dead on. (Boeing now think M1.8 okay that might have changed!!)

 

You do realise the CF-18 is a legacy Hornet?

 

Saying that the chart for the same loadout on the legacy (with GE-400) shows M1.65 for 2 x AIM-9 + 2 x AIM-7.

 

The AIM-7 has the same DI as the AIM-120 on the fuselage (2 x 4) - the wingtip AIM-9 are DI=0.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Basher54321