VnomadNice attempt there… unfortunately completely off. That revolver in Korean case were not the capabilities but political pressure, bribery and whining of a dozen ex-generals who were doing all that circus for free 😉
So Lockheed Martin has more political muscle than Boeing? Based on what? The ‘US-armtwists-others-into-buy-its-equipment’ argument would have been more credible if not for the fact that the overturned contract had been won by an American company as well.
Maybe the ex-generals were ‘whining’ because they didn’t want to see their service qualitatively outmatched by most of the neighborhood.
Vnomad( YOU FORGOT GRIPEN NG…it IS happening now)
The Gripen ‘Next Generation’ isn’t really next generation, let alone sixth generation.
NO, it’s NOT “good Caution”…it’s called keeping up with the Joneses……it’s like the guy that NEEDS to go and buy the Mercedes 5 Series…not because it is a good choice for his family of 6 kids….but because the guy ( with NO kids) across the road got one…..NOT a logical choice….just wanting to be seen as on “equal” grounds…….but the guy with 6 kids should be looking at more economic and compatable options…….ones that make sense for HIM……not the neighbour….
We’re discussing fighter jets not transport aircraft. Their purpose is to fight other aircraft (aside from strike), so yes it matters what your neighbours are flying because that’s what you may end up fighting in the future.
As Canada has NO military doctrine to operate in a first strike capacity AT ALL…..the “stealth” needed to “penatrate” radar heavy hostile environs is NOT a priority….we seriously need to be able to do as the Legacy CF18 Hornets do…….a lot of everything…..and do them pretty well across the board……sure, I can understand that “stealth” MAY be of benifit in a VLO vs. VLO engagement….but come on reality is it;s NOT happening over Canada……we get Bears, lots of Bears….occasionally a mixed flight ( escorted Bears)…..
The RCAF isn’t quite as myopic as that, and that’s why its brass wants to stick with the F-35. Just because you have lots of Bears today, doesn’t mean you’ll only have Bears to contend with in 2030. They’ll be no ‘quick fixes’ available, if the Russians decide to up their game in the Arctic with Su-35s and PAK FAs.
In reality, the F35 is simply TO expensive, does NOT do what we need it too as well as others including the CF18 does……it is NOT a logical replacement for the CF18’s……this 5th Gen. issue simply ISN’T that big a deal for most Nations……..a really sound, good, tried and tested and regularily updated Gen 4+ is more than perfect for many Nations……..including Canada…….
Nearly every major air force in the world with the notable exception of France is or will be inducting 5th generation aircraft. And France, which has no organic threats, will be investing quite significantly in its UCAV program.
Canada does our job…….and VERY WELL..to continue to do that does NOT require the F35…….
You’d have a more principled argument if you were lobbying to abolish the air force altogether. If you’re gearing up for a potential fight, fight to win. If you have no intention of getting into a fight, don’t waste billions to merely go through the motions. For basic air policing, you could look at second hand degraded F-15Cs. Or some forward based Scorpions from Textrons. That’ll ‘do’ the job, if you’re convinced that the job consists of merely waving a flag.
So you equate the VLO to being “the revolver”?………..personally I would prefer the semi auto pistol with 15 rounds………keep the stealth, it’s not needed by everyone……
That may be your ‘personal preference’, but the RCAF pilots training for a potential clash against the RuAF would have a whole different take on what they’d rather be sitting in.
P.S. Please use normal punctuation.
VnomadWishful thinking. Korean competition has put a huge hole into that theory of yours. The F-35 is like an unbeatable heavyweight boxing champion, who unfortunately has lost his very first match and only was declared a winner after he shot the other boxer with a revolver.
That’s an apt analogy actually. If you’re a bookie looking to make ‘collections’, the F-15E is a middleweight boxer you can get on the cheap, EF & Rafale are heavyweights, while the F-35 is a heavyweight packing a revolver. You pay a premium for the latter, but that’s who you want in a sticky situation.
VnomadThat sounds awful lot like writing requirements tailored for a design already chosen behind a backdoor. It’s called corrupt practices where I live..
BAE: Vampire -> Litening -> Tornado -> Typhoon
Dassault: Mystere -> Mirage III -> Mirage 2000 -> Rafale
Saab: Tunnan -> Draken -> Viggen -> Gripen
How is LM’s fault that no other stable has a fifth generation offering to follow up? And looking to buy a VLO fighter when your neighbours are buying VLO jets of their own isn’t ‘tailoring’, its just good caution. Applies to Canada vis a vis Russia, as much as it did to South Korea vis a vis China, Russia & Japan.
Vnomadand again……I highly doubt that Canada should be worried about a T50 ( only FIVE (5) exist) ( seeing as that is the PROTO TYPE of the PAK FA…) as I said……there isn;t going to be swarms of those coming to Canada is there?………maybe other planes…..but doubtfully T50’s……lol…..besides…they will save all their “stealthy” high tech stuff to go up against the US and it’s ” stealthy” Tech Stuff…just to see……
That’s your argument? The PAK FA is in the prototype stage, so it’ll probably never go into production. And if it does, it probably won’t be built in numbers. And if it is, they probably won’t bother sending any against Canada?
VnomadJay Langley,
First of all, please use normal punctuation. Your posts border on the unreadable (unless you intend them to be read to a hip-hop soundtrack).
Vnomad, again, Canada is NOT a Nation of war mongers…..we don;t tred the world looking to attack people…..WE, Canadians WILL and have every time we get called on…
Weapon systems don’t make war, people do. However, if you’re completely sure that the RCAF isn’t going engage in air combat against a high end threat, perhaps you should be re-examining its purpose.
Bring it and in a big way ( Boer War, WW1, WW2, Korea, all the UN Missions…Afgahnistan etc)…..BUT for us to equip to fight the hordes of people that ARE NOT attacking Canada is stupid…….we need a “better for Canada” plane…….cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, and we need to get MORE than 65 of them……
None of which has anything to do with the F-35.
so fictitious “loss rates” against proto type planes is redciulous……they won;t be attacking Canada……they will be attacking the USA…..
Excellent to know that Canada will never be attacked. Time to disband the RCAF then and save the govt and people billions.
as long as we can continue to operate and participate in NATO and meet or home Needs, we don;t need the F35 to do that………
No need to participate in NATO’s warmongering. As for ‘home needs’, I though we’d already established that Canada will never be attacked.
Canada will NOT be retiring our fast jets…..we have again recommitted to upgrading the CF188’s to continue on till 2025……but the F35 is NOT the only TOY in the store…….in all Honesty…….the F/A 18 E/F is far closer to what we need………..
How about you spell out what is it you need. If your air force is not for defence against the Russians, who is it to protect you against? The Norwegians? The US? Denmark via Greenland?
By the way………..F/A 18 E/F Super Hornets are priced at $55 Million each…….and a PROVEN IRON CLAD operating cost of $16,000.00 an hour………with the US Navy waiting final approval for what 24 E/W- 18 Gowlers…..the production runs will still be going………it may be a choice time to slip in to that run!……..Canada could get EXACTLY 127 F/A 18 Super Hornets for the same cost as 65 F35’s ( at 108 Million each…LOW BALLED)……
Hmm… and this $55 million includes support, spares, maintenance etc, does it?
By the way…….WHY would I look at the “cost of an either type”…..INCLUDING the engines ( already included in F/A 18 E/F)….spares..OK…..support ( Boeing Canada is here)…….Training?….really…alot less of that from CF188 to F/A 18 E/F…….Maintenance?….well seeing as they are far simpler, RCAF has crew that do that…..and can EASILY transfer knowledge with training…….and continue as is!……
Now lets add up those same costs for the F35……..OH thats right, NO ONE seems to be able to do that…….and when I tried to add it up, I was told to STOP trying to make it seem MORE expensive!……….
APPLES TO APPLES…
You’re complaining about how nobody can tell you the ‘real’ cost of the F-35, so lets hear from you as to the ‘real’ cost of the Super Hornet. Unless you want to stick with the $55 mil figure, in which case the corresponding figure for the F-35A is currently $108 mil falling to <$75 mil by 2018. That’s apples-to-apples.
VnomadYou gotta admit, for a company which should allegedly completely outclass the 4++ Gen with its F-35, the LM are surprisingly shy when it comes to open competitions. Why all this political backstabbing if there’s so much confidence in the aircraft?
An open competition can only take place between peers. If a customer call for a heavy weight long range interceptor, Boeing will enter the F-15E. If it calls for a medium weight multi-role fighter, Boeing will enter the F-18E/F. But if the AF in question wants a fighter with VLO capability, just what do you expect Boeing, Dassault, Saab etc to enter? If you drop the 5th gen requirement, one of them will win out on a lower life-cycle cost. Lower the criteria further and you can put probably flog a Kfir to the customer.
So just what is the utility of an ‘open competition’?
VnomadI think this latest scandal right before elections will be the death nell of the F35 going to the RCAF.
That could mean one of two things. Either (a) the RCAF will retire its fast jet fleet (in favour of a hotline to the USAF in Alaska), or (b) it will order the Super Hornet or Rafale. How about you take a gander at the cost of 65 aircraft of either type acquired off-the-shelf including engines, spares, support, training, maintenance.. the works. And your favoured aircraft’s likely loss-exchange ratio vis a vis the Su-35S and against the PAK FA.
VnomadVnomad – CAS and BAI and homeland defense and the rest are what fighters are actually used for, most of the time.
True but then most of the time, the Rafale is no better than a Blk52, and the EF no better than a F-15E. That’s certainly been the case for most NATO operations whether over Afghanistan or Libya. The F-35 will have the ROVER in 2022 (or a podded solution early) and SDB II by decade end. The JSOW & SOM will be operational with the 3F. In any case, in a low threat situation, you could still pair the F-35 with a legacy aircraft received ROVER feeds. It’d be two three wait for most customers, but that’s not quite so earthshaking. After all, the Rafale was operational for full decade, before it could self-designate ground targets, but no one really questioned its ‘omni-role’ design.
If we’re fortunate, no fighter aircraft will ever see real combat but that’s not an assumption any AF can afford to go with. For the RCAF, its been suggested that interception/air defence remains the primarily role. For that a Block 3F standard aircraft, with four Aim-120Ds (and 2 optional Aim-9Xs) is still the safest alternative, if they’re going up against PAK FAs (or even Su-35s).
As for mano a mano with the T-50 and J-20: A crucial and more or less unknowable factor is whether radar LPI/LPD works these days, in the sense of the stealth aircraft being able to detect, track and ID without being detected.
So you may be into a world of mutual detection with RF. In that case the key factors will be non-RF tracking (single-ship and multi-ship IRST) and more and better AAMs on the kill side, and platform kinematics, warning and jamming on the survival side. And from that, we can all draw our own conclusions without rehashing the last 38 IRST arguments.
Lets assume that LPI radar is not a reliable option for the F-35 (and F-22 & PAK FA). That still doesn’t diminish the value of a VLO airframe.
Fighter aircraft typically operate in pairs. In such a situation you’d have one (controlling) fighter remain ‘loud’ while the other operates ahead with its sensors in passive mode (and picking up reflected pings from enemy aircraft).
The radiating aircraft and a radiating enemy might spot each other at 400km but the result of the engagement will go the way of the side that can detect and track all the ‘silent’ aircraft fielded by the other side (that may or may not be within missile range). Where a non-VLO aircraft might be tracked at ranges in excess of 200km+ (i.e outside the missile envelope), by the time a VLO aircraft is within track range, it would already have launched its AAMs.
VnomadVnomad – Also it carries more than its predecessor in the Harrier II, and carries it further.
If you go back in this thread you will find the Navy Standard Aircraft Characteristics document which shows that to be incorrect.
You’re comparing an AV-8B with external tanks against a clean F-35B. That’s an additional 600 gallons, nearly doubling its total fuel load. An F-35B as and when qualified with a pair of EFTs will more than make up that 50nm deficit.
Let’s make this simple. Block 3I it is.
Sorry that should have been 3F. It’ll be released late 2017. The Rafale F3R will available to full spec in 2018. Same for the EF’s P3E. And 2018 is also when the Gripen E is expected to IOC.
With regard to the rest, how’s CAS, interdiction, recce, etc relevant here? We’re comparing the F-35 against the rest, in a hypothetical faceoff with the PAK FA and J-20, which you pointed out in your last post, are pushing towards operational status.
VnomadQuestion remains, of the gamut of missions that a fighter aircraft may be called onto perform, which competing aircraft outperforms the F-35, in what role and against which adversary?
Today, all of them do (including Gripen C/D) because the JSF cannot perform any operational missions at all.
Sure hasn’t stopped advocacy for/comparison with the Gripen E, which hasn’t every flown at the moment, let alone perform operational missions.
And are we talking about 2B/3I, or 3F? Or 4A/B? If so, are the others allowed to take credit for another 8-10 years and $$billion in development? By that time, T-50 and J-20 will be operational?
Block 3I is roughly IOC standard for the F-35A. And its contemporary would be the Rafale F3R, EF Typhoon T3 (with P3E), and the Gripen E (barring any delays). The Advance SH isn’t going materialize but include that as well. Compare them with the PAK FA and J-20 that you point out will be operational soon.
Which version of the JSF? Everyone is faster and more agile than the F-35C and everyone can carry more, farther, than the F-35B.
The F-35A obviously. The F-35C is for CATOBAR ops which is of no interest to anybody at the moment. The F-35B is the only STOVL solution for operators interested in that capability (UK, Spain, Italy, Singapore, Australia, Japan). Also it carries more than its predecessor in the Harrier II, and carries it further.
VnomadWhy single out the F-35 for being a compromise?
The F-35 and the Coasters’ Charlie Brown…. Why’s everybody always pickin’ on me?
The F-35 is singled out because its fans and its business plan don’t accept that it’s a compromise.
Show me any aircraft that’s not a compromise.
It’s sold and planned as the answer to every need, everywhere, and marketed as being better than everything at every mission, except the F-22 in air-to-air, and cheaper too.
What does the marketing matter? Do Dassault and Eurofighter market their wares as second best to something else at any mission? On the forum at least, one can compare any two aircraft at any given role without bring the company’s official line into the matter.
Question remains, of the gamut of missions that a fighter aircraft may be called onto perform, which competing aircraft outperforms the F-35, in what role and against which adversary? Objectively speaking and ignoring LM/BAE/Saab’s claims. Folks are all enthusiastic about the Eurocanard/SH’s prospects but then get remarkably reticent when asked how the aircraft in question would approach combat with a VLO design like the PAK FA.
VNomad – The report calls the F-35 “semi-stealthy”, calls for cutbacks in the program and raises the possibility of whacking the F-35C.
That it does, but it doesn’t question its performance compared to existing aircraft or the objectives of the JSF program. Its ‘semi-stealthy’ but it was always meant to be so, being a ‘tailed’ design.
If for example, Canada were to adopt the recommendations of the report, it would cancel its fighter replacement plan altogether, and invest in UCAVs, presumably delivered post-2025. No judgement on the F-35 as an interceptor or as a strike fighter.
Vnomadhttp://aviationweek.com/defense/new-strategy-would-cut-f-35s-boost-bombers-and-uavs
So… now even the DoD is starting to realise the F-35 is a load of sh_t.
The CSBA report is advocated a post-manned fighter jet solution to air warfare. It makes no criticism of the F-35 relative to contemporary aircraft.
[spare the “but but but force multiplier, but but but stealth, but but but 5th generation, but but but network-centric, but but but lockeed, but but powerpoint” crap that will inevitably be a ‘response’.]
Actually, the response will be to ask how LPI connectivity can be maintained with UCAVs at extreme ranges, especially once the other side start targeting your your satellites. Unless of course the aircraft is capable of operating in high-threat environments with zero human input. That sort of autonomous operation would require technological leaps in artificial intelligence, that makes the whole venture a non-starter at this point.
Because -A and -C are compromised to fit in -B; which adds several further levels of compromising that the others don’t have to do.
Yes, it would have been ideal for the F-35 not to have had a carrier or STOVL variant (or deep bays for 2000lbers). Cost would have been impacted with the total build order reduced by as many as 1000 aircraft. In any case, reasonably speaking ‘others’ here should refer to the PAK FA, J-20, J-31 etc, and not aircraft that don’t feature VLO in the first place.
VnomadThat is contentious, to put mildly.
Hmm.. I suppose so. The N036 will have a much larger FoV, while the APG-81 has a higher T/R count and better EW & AtG functionality. I think most would bet on the APG-81 on account of its ‘pedigree’, but its a debatable point (why wasn’t the Su-35S fielded with an AESA?). The comparison against the Eurocanard systems (or even the APG-82), less so.
VnomadThere is no doubt at all, however, that moving beyond the F-35 &c-class RCS into all-aspect/broadband requires a trade in maneuver performance.
I think we all accept that RCS is a requirement that must be balanced against others.
The question is whether there is one right compromise for all military air missions and users (which is the core of the JSF case). That’s increasingly disputed.
Its the same for all fighter aircraft isn’t it? All of them are a compromise between something or the other. The Eurofighter’s high-speed-high-altitude optimization, leaves it vulnerable in a low speed knife-fight. The Super Hornet’s superlative high AoA performance comes at the cost of poor transonic performance. The Rafale offers a good balance of both, but designing it for carrier ops, forced it to manage with an undersized radar. The Gripen’s focus on being affordable, left it ‘little brother’ to its bigger competitors. The F-22’s focus on being ‘big brother’ to everything else, left it unaffordable.
Why single out the F-35 for being a compromise? The crucial difference however, is that the Eurocanards and ‘legacy’ fighters trace their origins back to a time when VLO was still an exotic concept. In contrast, every clean sheet design in development or under consideration today follows in the footsteps of the F-22 or F-35.
Sign In
