GinnerGinner, don’t take this the wrong way but do some legwork. This is open source information. Start with a LOAN nozzle, then look up aerodynamic heating at various speeds.
The best way to look at the IR sig of the F-35 is that the US has stated many times that the focus of LO aircraft design is “balanced observables”- there have been various statements regarding this. In short, there is no point in designing a fighter to have reduced radar detection range and not to treat the IR spectrum. The US philosophy is that LO aircraft should be detectable in IR and EM at roughly the same distance. To that effect, the F-35 includes LOAN nozzle to cool and flatten the exhaust, hide the plume between the twin tails, extensive use of fuel as a heat sink, leading edge cooling, and so forth. Obviously, any aircraft in reheat, or moving at supersonic speeds is going to have a higher IR sig.
No offense taken. The links provided above were informative.
GinnerYes F-35 has IR signature just like any black body that has temperature higher than absolute zero , however if that aircraft body temperature is around the same as background temperature then it is extremely hard to detect it ( not even accounted for various factor such as weather, cloud ) , read the link GarryA posted , the bottom talk very detail about infrared reduction measuare (it not just the engine but various part on the F-35 too ) and how background temperature and speed affect IR detection range.
and an engine with higher thrust doesnot automatic mean they have higher IR signature
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/stealth-techniques-and-benefits/And dont forget that IRST sensor can be jammed by LRF too
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bBb2LpX5CnQC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=DIRCM+laser+MJ&source=bl&ots=CDjaDoP-Rr&sig=Hgfm5Qm7D2uir1rA8FmNMucXH50&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnob3kgd7JAhUGyRQKHWnECuQQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q&f=false
That was a good read. Nice link.
GinnerGinnerYour statement makes no sense.
Just as the F-35 is not invisible to radar but simply has a very low return, it also has technology to reduce its IR signature. No one is claiming it is invisible but this reduced signature comes from more effort and focus than any of the competing platforms, especially given it was built from the start to incorporate all aspect stealth including RCS, IR, comms, radar etc.
I have seen no information on the F35 regarding it’s IR signature in comarison to any other plane, so tough for me to make bold statements. While there is no doubt that manufacturers are considering IR reduction (where the exhaust is) you cannot do much about the fact that it’s a draggy plane moving through the air at a high speed which generates heat, it has a big engine etc.
GinnerNo Gripen is a upgrade of a existing aircraft with a very small fleet size. At a certain point you simply have to move on to a new plane.
.
It’s no more of an upgrade than the Super Hornet was for the legacy F18. It’s a new plane.
GinnerOthers have already debunk that myth, why you repeat it?
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?138133-Canadian-Fighter-Replacement&p=2300370#post2300370
So what you are saying is that the F35 has no IR signature and is invisible. Link?
IR reduction measures don’t equate to IR stealth.
GinnerI like the Gripen, but it drives me crazy when fanboys look at the spec sheet and go: “The Gripen is pretty fast, and it can fly a long way, and it can carry a decent amount, and it can operate from a short runway, etc etc.”
What they don’t seem to understand is that it can’t do all those things at once. Lightly loaded the Gripen is pretty fast and maneuverable, and it can operate from a short airfield.
If loaded with an air to ground loadout it can carry a respectable load, but only a short distance.
This makes perfect sense when you consider that the Gripen was designed to operate in a defensive war over Swedish territory. It wasn’t expected to need to fly far or carry a load great distances.
If you start throwing fuel tanks, etc, on a Gripen its performance degrades very rapidly. Don’t forget that a Gripen has literally half the thrust of an F-18 or Super Hornet…
Relative to its power, a 450 gallon tank on a Gripen is like a 900 gallon tank on a Super Hornet, F-35, or Eurofighter…. the Gripen can hypothetically fly with a huge amount of fuel relative to its tiny engine (enabling those inflated range numbers), but it is a purely subsonic aircraft with minimal maneuverability.
Even an air to air loadout of 6 missiles on a Gripen is the equivalent of a 12 missile load for something like a Eurofighter…
While your ratios are over simplified, it is the reason it’s not a great choice as the sole fighter for Canada. Again…..great plane in a small country or as part of a mixed fleet in a big one.
GinnerLate service life suport for these aircraft is also going to be a major issue in regards to keeping them current.
F16, F15, Typhoon, and Gripen are likely on there last major upgrade programs financed by there developing countries.
F18 and Rafale will force a choice by US navy and France to decide do they wish to commit to sixth generation aircraft or keep upgrading existing planes. Past 2030 I think their view will tilt toward a new aircraft.
The F35 is the only certain choice that will receive upgrades post 2030.
Gripen – could not be more wrong. This is not a mid life upgrade its pretty much a brand new plane.
Typhoon will be in service for 25 years plus with Germany. They will have to invest in upgrades. Same for the UK.
The French are committed to the Rafale for the next 25 years.
The teen series are at risk of course. I expect there will be F15s flying for 20 to 25 years in the US and the Super will fly until they have a replacement. Again you are looking at 15 to 20 years at least.
GinnerHa, given I come from a country that is massive with a small defence budget I am fully aware of the issues surrounding defence spending and the taxpayer receiving value for money. Australia has had as bad a recent procurement history as the Canadians which is why buying the right airframe that will last the required timeframe is the right thing to do, instead of selling your defence short for a quick win that wil in the long run cost more overall.
If the F35 is the right airplane for Canada and does not cripple the military for the forseeable future as a result of purchasing it, then I hope it’s the one we get. I have serious concerns about that being the case though. At least we can count on a fair and transparent competition rather than what the Conservatives tried to pull off.
GinnerYou do understand that stealth is not just about RCS right? Stealth features on the F-35 include IR reduction through various methods as well as treatments and custom designed antennas and arrays… The IR component of stealth has always been a feature of the design and can be tracked back as far as 1996 in JSF initial requirements.
Given F-35 has taken as long to develop to this point as Rafale, Typhoon, F-22, Gripen NG, SU-35 have all taken I don’t see your point. Can you provide one example of where a nation has been able to develop a fighter jet from scratch in less time than any of the above?
As for developing faster by taking advantage of proven technology, that works only when you are happy to maintain parity with your adversary. There are not many top tier air forces in the world, and the RCAF is one of those, that are willing to accept parity.
You need to come back to the real world and understand the actual needs and mission requirements of the RCAF.
The RCAF themselves list their purpose as
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/index.page
Intercepting a bomber visually is nice fun and may make for some good PR shots but what the RCAF will actually do in a conflict is shoot that same bomber down from as far away as possible. What the focus of the fighter program should be, and by extension its requirements, is fulfilling the above three key defence roles.
Continuing the above, the RCAF mission statement is the following,
Acquiring a platform that may tick some boxes now and is cheap does not necessarily tick the boxes for conflict 20 years from now. Any requirements written by Canada will ensure that the platform chosen can fulfil that 20+ years from now mission, not just what is being done today.
You don’t seem to grasp the fact that Canada is a massive country with a tiny defense budget and needs to be able to buy a capable plane it can actually afford to purchase, maintain and fly without crippling every other aspect of our national defense. It’s not a difficult equation.
GinnerWe just had the first transatlantic crossing by F35 accompanied by a Typhoon and the Typhoon had three external tanks to the zero external for the F35.
The typhoon had to refuel more often then F35. The F35 was in very close to a combat configuration just add missiles and ammunition for the guns and it would be ready. The Typhoon was not in anything close to a combat ready state.
My question is if Gripen out ranges the F35 as long as Gripen has tanks. Then what is causing the Typhoon to under perform so badly in a similar scenario?
It sounds like the 7 refuellings the F35 used (1 was precautionary) were about on par with what you would expect. What are you trying to say?
GinnerNo mach 3 (that’s so third generation by the way) no cloaking device. But it likely could single handily wipe the Canadian air force from the sky if you choose the wrong plane.
F18 was chosen by Canada in 1982, its replacement now looks like it will be chosen in 2020 so 38 years. So expect any plane Canada chooses in 2020 to in use tell 2060.
If you’re not willing to except the coming age of directed energy weapons. You will find it hard to talk about things with people on this board because most seem to view them as very likely very soon. Bombers being larger with more surplus power generation are natural candidate for being first adapters of DEW. Both US and Russia are working on new bombers at this time.
Things change over time Canada will go from a relatively easy threat to counter(at least in regards to risks facing the fighter doing it), to a extremely hard one. If you wish to ignore the anti bomber mission then most of your talking points simply don’t work. You only need a expeditionary air force designed to work in conjunction with coalition partners at that point.
I think the point is there is no 6th generation bomber to worry about at this point. You evolve as the threat evolves, you don`t build capabilities for unknown threats. That’s a great way to blow your entire defence budget on something that will cripple your ability to operate today. The F35 is potentially an example of that. Tons of effort placed on stealth but no consideration given to how detection capabilities (IR) can evolve to negate that very expensive R&D project. As a result of learning on the boondoggles like Typhoon, F35 and F22, the conversations around the next generation of fighter plane have shifted from a focus on pure technology research to being able to build and deploy new platforms faster that take advantage of proven technology. How much better of a fighter would the F35 have been if they did not innovate on every piece of technology employed?
You need to be pragmatic when you are a country like Canada (see Sweden) . We can leave the futuristic scenarios up to DARPA.
GinnerThis comes back to some of the misconceptions rife on the Blogs you’ve used to get some of your information.
Read “Full system control, full software control” – that is excellent ToT, no one would argue that. Does not mean that Saab or any manufacturer will “hand over” source code unless it is paid for as part of the contract, as per the Saab deal with Brazil.All, including the F-35 allow varying degrees control of object code, none are going to include source code to radar tracking/processing algorithms or, (in the case of Dassault Spectra’s source code) IDAS software source code. Short of buying into some degree of industrial partnership as Brazil did with Saab (and even then, Brazil gets only the intellectual property that Saab is able to transfer).
In the case of the F-35, there is no way that the U.S. government would have over source code as the F-35 with its ICP does not have federated software for radar tracking, NCTR, IDAS, FCS, etc. that would allow a user access to some subsystem source codes.
In short, if Canada wanted to increase massively the contract cost, they could have much of the source codes for any of the competitors, with the exception of the F-35. The question is, for what? Is Canada going to develop a IDAS system to rival Spectra, or EWS 39. Are there radar modes lacking in any of the competitors? I find the source code debate that occurs around the Gripen, F-35, etc to be ridiculous. Unless you are looking to kickstart your own nascent domestic fighter development industry (as in India/ Brazil to a lesser extent), or install significant amount of indigenous software/hardware, it isn’t needed. Even with the limited access partner nations are given to the F-35’s software code, Israel is able to customize Comms, EW sytems.
Despite what critics say, though the fighters you listed: Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon that would offer access to source codes, it would raise the costs associated for little gain in Canada’s case.
In the case of the radar, yeah I think the Selex radars are brand new and if we want to prioritize certain capabilities, it could be an area where we contribute to development. The Typhoon sounds like it’s pretty immature on sensor fusion as well.
GinnerSorry for going OT but is Canada really considering replacing the Aurora MPA? I thought they just did an upgrade to allow them to fly until 2030?
http://o.canada.com/news/national/replacement-for-aurora-surveillance-aircraft-deemed-unaffordable
In the medium term, yes. Those planes are bloody expensive to fly.
GinnerI also like the Eurocanards, in particular the Gripen and Rafale — however realistically the F-35 is much more capable, and has the advantage (for Canada) of being American. Whether Canada needs the extra capabilities of the F-35 or not, really depends on the Canadian Air Force. My guess is they will strongly prefer the F-35 and therefore write requirements to ensure that it wins. In the end it will come down to cost and politics; look at Switzerland. Rafale clearly won the technical eval and was preferred by the Swiss Air Force, but Gripen NG was found to be sufficient, and was preferred in the end, since it would fit into the budget.
Previous competitions (e.g. Switzerland and Brazil) have shown that Gripen is significantly cheaper than Rafale, Typhoon and the SH (at least in those competitions). For future competitions it will have the advantage that it already has 96 a/c in the order book; and just like the F-35 costs are sinking as the production is increasing, so will the cost of the Gripen most likely be lower for the third country to pick it, than the 1st and 2nd, in particular if they decide to not go for an assembly line which has increased the cost for Brazil.
However this discussion may not be relevant if Canada can afford a sufficient number of F-35. Only if they cannot do that, will they look at other options (similar to what happened to Rafale in Switzerland). Since the cost differential is probably going to be smaller than in Switzerland, and since the capability differential is probably going to be bigger, the likelihood of Canada picking F-35 over Gripen or SH is higher than the likelihood of Switzerland picking Rafale over Gripen; and if you add to that the political dimension, it seems a very high likelihood that F-35 will be chosen.
To be honest I don’t know why Dassault and Eurofighter bother participating.
As for Saab; did they return to this competition or are they still out? Keep in mind they did drop out of it during the previous round.
The competition has not started yet. They are re-writing the stinky requirements they initially came out with AFTER they decided to sole source. We are at square 1 with the clock ticking.
If Dassault wants to participate they are going to need to get it through their thick heads that the rest of the world does not want to be stuck with French weapons. They need to take Saab’s approach and offer the Rafale as a test bed for new munitions. A Rafale that could support AIM 120 C/D, AIM 9L/X, IRIS-T, GBU-39, Brimestone and JDAM would have a whole lot more export success in NATO countries. Heck….is it not a better replacement for the German Tornadoes than anything out there?? Adding a HMD and a two-way datalink (Meteor and AIM 120) would be gravy. Canada can’t buy into that patform without having other countries sharing weapons certification costs (ongoing). In my mind it is the best plane out there, but those costs are not small. Based on what the RAF are spending on the Typhoon weapons certifications costs, we might have to spend more than $1 billion just to Canadianize the Rafale. Maybe a lot more.
The Typhoon is a serious contender in Canada. They have a lot to prove though (get costs down by 20% like they promised, fix their disaster of a supply chain etc.). I’m pretty sure the Typhoon can beat Rafale on price in Canada by a decent margin because they work with most of the stuff we have, A2A performance is exceptional, upgrade potential is good (though prospects of fast upgrades ****ty given the disaster consortium). They probably need to re-think who is going to continue to invest in the platform going forward and ditch the dead-weight.
Handicapping it right now….
F18 SH is a pretty clear favourite
F35
Typhoon
Gripen
Rafale
Best plane for Canada: I have no idea.
Sign In
