Canadas Next Fighter

[Sweep]

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.

 

I disagree, the test was the 'software limitations' and not 1v1 BFM vs a Viper.

 

The USMC said the F-35's performance is similar to a Hornet in the merge. I think the Viper'll probably wack the F-35 in a neutral, head-on, merge. But a realistic, BVR start (and without a lens on the F-35) - I think the Viper will get waxed in WVR.

 

""The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly,""

[Hummingbird]

I disagree, the test was the 'software limitations' and not 1v1 BFM vs a Viper.

 

The USMC said the F-35's performance is similar to a Hornet in the merge. I think the Viper'll probably wack the F-35 in a neutral, head-on, merge. But a realistic, BVR start (and without a lens on the F-35) - I think the Viper will get waxed in WVR.

 

""The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly,""

 

I find it very odd that they say the EM charts of the F-35B & C are similar, infact that makes very little sense and kind of hurts the credibility of the entire statement IMHO.

 

The F-35C features substantially more wing area for a very small weight increase, incl. enlarged LE & TE devices. By comparison the B is both heavier than the A version and supposedly draggier as well due to fuselage enlargement in order to make room for the VTOL lifting fan.

[Goldsmack]

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

 

And this is my fear that it will be based on a political view not a military view, the military should speak for the military and the politicians for the politicians.

[vladd148]

And this is my fear that it will be based on a political view not a military view, the military should speak for the military and the politicians for the politicians.

 

It is always politics. If there's one thing I have learned in my time in it's that. Just the way the cookie crumbles.

[Exorcet]

I find it very odd that they say the EM charts of the F-35B & C are similar, infact that makes very little sense and kind of hurts the credibility of the entire statement IMHO.

 

In an area where the g limit is significant, that will bring the two planes closer together. Also if these tests are done according to fuel percentage and not fuel fraction, the C will carry far more weight. With vague statements, there is room to wiggle.

[Tirak]

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:

 

I can't even believe we're still going over this. The Test in question with the F-16 WAS NOT A DOGFIGHTING TEST, it was a test of the flight control software, the F-16 was ONLY THERE TO PROVIDE A REFERENCE POINT FOR THE PILOT. There was NO DOGFIGHT, no combat simulated or otherwise.

 

Affordability, the Gripen is far less capable and the Eurofighter is far more expensive, so you're either saving a tiny fraction of money for a plane a third as capable, or overspending on a plane that's going to be far more difficult to upkeep. Hooray logic :doh:

[Hummingbird]

In an area where the g limit is significant, that will bring the two planes closer together. Also if these tests are done according to fuel percentage and not fuel fraction, the C will carry far more weight. With vague statements, there is room to wiggle.

 

The C version features a massive 45.4% increase in wing area alone, whilst the weight difference in comparison to the B version is only 7.4%. To suggest that this would result in a, and I quote, "very similar" EM diagram definitely hurts credibility and reeks of PR IMHO.

 

Infact, and I've said this before, that the F-35 needed a 45+ percent increase in wing area to allow for acceptable landing speeds for carrier use also only reinforces the theory that the F-35 is an aircraft trying to meet too many goals at once.

 

Now I don't believe that the F-35 will be a bad aircraft, infact I'm sure it will mature into a first class strike aircraft, but I am also convinced that it will be a lousy air superiority fighter in anything but ideal situations - and as such I don't see it as being a very wise purchase for countries who are looking for a fighter that will safeguard their airspace.

[Hummingbird]

Affordability, the Gripen is far less capable and the Eurofighter is far more expensive, so you're either saving a tiny fraction of money for a plane a third as capable, or overspending on a plane that's going to be far more difficult to upkeep. Hooray logic :doh:

 

In what way is the Gripen far less capable?

 

Also your belief in the F-35 being three times more effective than either is based on what?

 

I think you're selling both the Eurofighter & Gripen way short of what they are truly capable of whilst you're singing the praises of an aircraft which hasn't even seen a single shred of combat, let alone operational service. Is that logic to you?

 

Also regarding the F-35 vs F-16 test, if the below are really the pilot's words then that's worrying:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875#.6zmr15dy2

 

Btw the above very much suggests that simulated dogfights did take place.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Exorcet]

The C version features a massive 45.4% increase in wing area alone, whilst the weight difference in comparison to the B version is only 7.4%. To suggest that this would result in a, and I quote, "very similar" EM diagram definitely hurts credibility and reeks of PR IMHO.

 

Yes, but along with that, the B carries 13000 lbs of fuel to the C's 20000. Depending on how combat weight is determined, that can be pretty significant. I usually see % fuel, which would give the B a larger weight advantage than structure alone.

 

Also, those big wings are eventually going to hurt the C. They are nothing but drag at high speed. The C will out perform the B when flying slowing, but even if weight is equalized, it's very likely to lose its edge at higher speeds. If that wasn't the case, why not slap the C wing on everything?

[Sweep]

In what way is the Gripen far less capable?

 

Also your belief in the F-35 being three times more effective than either is based on what?

 

I think you're selling both the Eurofighter & Gripen way short of what they are truly capable of whilst you're singing the praises of an aircraft which hasn't even seen a single shred of combat, let alone operational service. Is that logic to you?

 

Also regarding the F-35 vs F-16 test, if the below are really the pilot's words then that's worrying:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875#.6zmr15dy2

 

Btw the above very much suggests that simulated dogfights did take place.

 

They're somewhat worrying when taken out of context a bit, yeah.

 

Capability wise, I think Typhoon is great for air to air, but the lack of stealth is really going to hurt it in the future. It does pretty darn well as a bomb truck too.

 

I think the main concerns with Gripen are similar to that of the Eurofighter: Cost, stealth capability. Though the Gripen also doesn't have range* or payload going for it, either, AFAIK.

 

An aircraft doesn't really have to see combat to be 'good' or whatever adjective you guys want to use, IMHO.

 

*I'm not sure, I think its similar to the F-16 in terms of combat radius? I need to look into it more.

 

Edit: put the quote in there.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Sweep
edited with quote

[Kayos]

Canada also like twin engine fighters for flying over the water and arctic.

I'd rather have another twin engine fighter again as well.

[Hummingbird]

Yes, but along with that, the B carries 13000 lbs of fuel to the C's 20000. Depending on how combat weight is determined, that can be pretty significant. I usually see % fuel, which would give the B a larger weight advantage than structure alone.

 

Also, those big wings are eventually going to hurt the C. They are nothing but drag at high speed. The C will out perform the B when flying slowing, but even if weight is equalized, it's very likely to lose its edge at higher speeds. If that wasn't the case, why not slap the C wing on everything?

 

Well that's the thing, the basic design means that you'll never get a true air superiority fighter out of it regardless of what wings you slap onto it.

 

The larger wings of the C model will address the agility issues that the A & B will be suffering at subsonic speeds, but at the cost of performance at higher speeds.

 

The F-35 simply isn't an air superiority fighter by design, it's primarily a strike aircraft by nature, which is also why I think the C model is going to be the most capable and really ought to be the logic choice for those who are interested in the aircraft.

[Sweep]

"True" air superiority meaning true to 4th generation design goals?

[Hummingbird]

Btw keep in mind that if Denmark ever goes for the Gripen then it will be the Gripen NG version, which AFAIK boasts some very impressive A-A and A-G capability.

 

Now the F-35 is obviously going to be a superior strike craft, but again will it be to a degree that's really necessary? Esp. considering predicted cost of procurement and maintenance as well as the lacking capability in the air superiority/interceptor role.

 

In short I don't see the F-35 as a wise choice for the countries primarily looking for an aircraft to safeguard their own airspace.

[Hummingbird]

"True" air superiority meaning true to 4th generation design goals?

 

You are betting a lot on the sensors I gather, a mistake that has been made before, but even under ideal situations it won't always be enough regardless. The aircraft still needs to have the performance to carry its ordinance to the fight, which sometimes also means "catching" the fight, as well as the ability to survive in the event that the enemy doesn't fall to the missiles in BVR.

 

As one airforce pilots apparently is quoted as saying “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed, but it can beat the F-22 in stealth. The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets. In fact, it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can accomplish in the early stages of a war."

 

Again pointing out that performance still matters.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Hummingbird

[RoflSeal]

You are betting a lot on the sensors I gather, a mistake that has been made before, but even under ideal situations it won't always be enough regardless. The aircraft still needs to have the performance to carry its ordinance to the fight, which sometimes also means "catching" the fight, as well as the ability to survive in the event that the enemy doesn't fall to the missiles in BVR.

 

As one airforce pilots apparently is quoted as saying “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed, but it can beat the F-22 in stealth. The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets. In fact, it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can accomplish in the early stages of a war."

 

Again pointing out that performance still matters.

 

Well, the F-22 is like 2x more expensive then the F-35 is due to be by LRIP 15. Even in LRIP 8 F-35 is way cheaper then F-22.

And there will be 12x more F-35 then F-22 in US service if orders aren't cut.

 

And why the comparison to the F-22? F-35 won't replace F-22, it will be replacing F-16, AV-8B, F/A-18C

 

With the F-35, we get more of all this, compared to what we are used to today. To discover how much more was a positive surprise for me. In full war equipment operates F-35 effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 can, without using afterburner. The speed in 'cruises' is without further 50 to 80 knots higher. In the F-16, I must use afterburner and take running speed before a missile shot. F-35 "cruiser" both faster and higher. Therefore, I am ready to shoot far anytime.

 

 

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/04/20/moderne-luftkamp-the-right-stuff-top-gun-eller-noe-helt-annet/#more-1050

Edited December 12, 2015 by RoflSeal

[Bushmanni]

I would say F-35 isn't air superiority plane as it's uncertain how it's going to fare against PAK-FA, J-20 or any other future 5. gen air superiority fighter. US has F-22 but everyone else is stuck with F-35. I think the F-35 is still the best western plane besides F-22 to fight against 5. gen aggressors but is it good enough, especially price ie. numbers wise? Of course the 5. gen threat hasn't emerged yet but you have to consider it when you buy planes that's going to be your inventory for the next 30 years. It's no wonder why Japan is trying to build its own 5. gen air superiority fighter.

[Sweep]

You are betting a lot on the sensors I gather, a mistake that has been made before, but even under ideal situations it won't always be enough regardless. The aircraft still needs to have the performance to carry its ordinance to the fight, which sometimes also means "catching" the fight, as well as the ability to survive in the event that the enemy doesn't fall to the missiles in BVR.

 

As one airforce pilots apparently is quoted as saying “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed, but it can beat the F-22 in stealth. The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets. In fact, it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can accomplish in the early stages of a war."

 

Again pointing out that performance still matters.

 

Yep. Performance does matter now and for the foreseeable future it'll matter too. I just don't think it matters as much as it has in the past.

[Exorcet]

Well that's the thing, the basic design means that you'll never get a true air superiority fighter out of it regardless of what wings you slap onto it.

 

The larger wings of the C model will address the agility issues that the A & B will be suffering at subsonic speeds, but at the cost of performance at higher speeds.

 

I'd think the high speed regime is where you'd want the maneuverability, especially if your plane is focused on BVR. Also, depending on the weaponry used in WVR, slow and drawn out turn fights may not be attractive to any aircraft. Specific weapons weren't mentioned in the report, but the F-35 used was outdated software wise. Expanded missiles boresight could have completely changed the result.

 

 

 

The F-35 simply isn't an air superiority fighter by design, it's primarily a strike aircraft by nature, which is also why I think the C model is going to be the most capable and really ought to be the logic choice for those who are interested in the aircraft.

Yes, it's a strike plane, but it should also have decent air to air capability, even at this point. Half of the feedback in the report was focused on what the aircraft allowed the pilot to do. Beyond that, the intent of the F-35 is to focus more on the BVR/stealth/avionics side of air combat. It seems reasonable given the performance of upcoming WVR missiles and the fact that getting to WVR involves passing through BVR. That would make this test a bit of a worst case scenario for the fighter, so trying to back out overall combat effectiveness from the test is an extrapolation. The C might have done better in this test, but I don't think that would make it a better fighter. If the A is faster, it will be able to react to the battle more quickly and also have an advantage when positioning itself. Better maneuverability at high speed would push that advantage further.

 

The report does seem to contradict some earlier statements of performance regarding the F-35 though. It seems it might rely more on high AoA performance than sustained turning in a guns fight. I wish there was more info on the configuration of the aircraft, especially weight. What is most surprising to me is that it sounds like there was fuel in the F-16 wing tanks, but that's not confirmed. There is no mention of F-35 fuel load that I've found.

 

I would say F-35 isn't air superiority plane as it's uncertain how it's going to fare against PAK-FA, J-20 or any other future 5. gen air superiority fighter. US has F-22 but everyone else is stuck with F-35. I think the F-35 is still the best western plane besides F-22 to fight against 5. gen aggressors but is it good enough, especially price ie. numbers wise? Of course the 5. gen threat hasn't emerged yet but you have to consider it when you buy planes that's going to be your inventory for the next 30 years. It's no wonder why Japan is trying to build its own 5. gen air superiority fighter.

 

Yes, this is one of my biggest concerns with the plane. It looks like it has what it needs to beat most things out there now, but I wonder about the future. Stealth and avionics are great to have, but I would expect future fighters to be more like the F-22 and have performance and stealth. It's hard to say though, because speed and agility mean nothing if you can't find the enemy.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Exorcet

[Mr_Burns]

It's not meant to replace the F-22 anyway and is in the case of UK is not replacing the Typhoon, so it's not a future fighter, the airforce is already working towards the next FX-Xx 6th gen fighter and the RAF will probably have a separate Typhoon replacement project in the pipeline.

[Hummingbird]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[Hummingbird]

Also I'm pretty impressed by the load-out capability of the Gripen NG:

 

Also one of the cockpit:

Edited December 13, 2015 by Hummingbird

[GGTharos]

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.

 

As far as Canada is concerned, the F-35 WILL be faster than our F-18s.

 

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.

 

Yep, for a small country that may make a difference. The speed doesn't - you're not getting there much faster compared to a 35. You can lay it on about maneuverability, but when it comes to speed you need quite a bit of space to accelerate. Any gains by a non-F35 aircraft would probably be marginal IMHO.

 

This changes with large expanses like USA and Canada, where you should conceivably go for a 200nm flat dash intercept. Again all IMHO.

[PiedDroit]

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.

I think it's a very balanced choice, I'd love to see Canada choose this one as well.

[Hummingbird]

As far as Canada is concerned, the F-35 WILL be faster than our F-18s.

 

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?

 

Yep, for a small country that may make a difference. The speed doesn't - you're not getting there much faster compared to a 35. You can lay it on about maneuverability, but when it comes to speed you need quite a bit of space to accelerate. Any gains by a non-F35 aircraft would probably be marginal IMHO.

 

This changes with large expanses like USA and Canada, where you should conceivably go for a 200nm flat dash intercept. Again all IMHO.

 

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.