hopsalotYou’re forever stuck with those 1-vs-1 comparisons. An air force can have 5 F-16s for the price of two F-35s. And for a million dollars it can do 100-110 total flight hours instead of ~30. For air forces primarily tasked with air defense and policing, numbers, readiness and cost is pretty much all that matters.
That would be interesting if it were true.
hopsalotSee Brazilian article from “Folha de São Paulo” newspaper saying that “A previsão é de um índice de nacionalização de 40% quando o último caça for entregue”, or in english, “The forecast is a national content of 40% when the last air fighter is delivered”.
Google translation from portuguese to english.
So much for the whole “Saab always delivers what they say on budget” thing. A 20% price hike right at the start of the project suggests the initial bid was anything but conservative.
hopsalotIn a further proof that the Israelis don’t read message boards… Israel buys 25 more F-35s, raising their total order thus far to 44. (death spiral continues… 😉 )
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/israel-defence-lockheed-martin-idUSL5N0SN5DI20141028
hopsalotIf theoretically, the USAF or an export customer like Israel were to commit itself to funding/developing-as-offset modifications for six missile carriage, would the USN cancel the AIM-9X Blk 3 development?
The AIM-9X Blk3 would allow 4 MRAAMs to be carried (two externally) along with two 2000lbs/JSMs. In an air superiority configuration it would allow a more flexible 8 missile loadout, which is hardly rare for other aircraft. Just as importantly perhaps, in a (thus far theoretical) block 5 aircraft, in a stealth configuration, it would allow retention of a pair of missiles for WVR exigencies, while still retaining the option of using all six at medium range. (The Rafale probably employs the MICA much the same way.)
All said and done, for a service which will operate less than 100 F-35Cs over the coming decade (compared to nearly 700 SHs & Growlers, I doubt the missile’s development would be primarily focused on the F-35. Its more likely they want a jam resistant IIR MRAAM.
Edit:
The Block III “overlaps the range capability” of the AIM-120 Amraam, Schulte says.
Along with Navy efforts to add an infrared search and track system to the Super Hornet, it’s a response to “a particular threat that presents difficulties in RF” (radio-frequency). Asked whether the threat is Chinese, Schulte says “it could be.”
Boeing has said that the Hornet IRST program is a response to “RF-denied environments,” a likely reference to high-powered jamming. The new missile will use the Block II seeker, datalink and optical fuze but will almost certainly require a new motor.
Once again our perpetually critical friend is seeking to invent problems.
See for example slide 11 in this presentation which makes it quite clear what the reasoning behind the Block III is:
Note also that these are from 2009….
hopsalotSome new detail about Gripen NG :
So Gripen NG FOC is expected to be in 2024, 10 years from now.
Maybe that whole “6th generation” thing was right after-all…
hopsalotOK, this is what catches me every time…..and even you said it……”The F-35 will be capable…”…and that is an issue….is not that really saying that people THINK it will do these things?…but in all honesty it hasn’t done those things at all?…or yet?
And again, I completely understand that the avionics in a BRAND NEW plane are better than a 25 year old one, even with upgrades..BUT to quote you ” In real world operations the F-35 is….”, yet there are NO real world statistics available for a plane that is still in testing phase…..and again doesn;t that make so many things fall under “best guess / expected” than IT DOES?…….
The first F-35 squadron is scheduled to go operational next July. They are certainly still working bugs out of the system, but its basic performance is not in question at this point.
Now I have noticed that you have mentioned SIX 6 missiles in the Internal Bays, yet I have never seen that referenced, only TWO pylons in each bay for a total of FOUR internal missiles, so what is the “truth”?…..
The F-35 currently has the capability to carry 4 internal AMRAAMs, but has the internal capacity for 6. It is also capable of carrying additional missiles on external pylons as 4th generation aircraft do.
I also completely understand that the CF188 is a dynasty plane…..it is old, it is a Carrier based design and incorporates alot of heavy duty structure and landing gear ( which Canada has claimed to be of importance and help with poor landing strips, heavy snow etc)…., and as the newer F18E/F is also a heavy weight Carrier based design, even with newer, more powerful, better efficiency engines, nwere, better avionics, it is has a performance not much better than the CF188, correct?…..anyway, there is still substantial concern in Canada that the F35 simply doesn;t , won;t and can’t fit our requirements…..chief amongst them being the costs to buy then operate / maintain…… for FEWER planes than we struggle with now, and our severely limited airfields in the far north will NOT support F35 use.
The Super Hornet is essentially a bigger Hornet with upgraded avionics. It has lost some agility and speed, but has gained range, endurance, and carrying capacity. The Super Hornet is an excellent aircraft and was a hugely cost effective program.
Boeing has advertised a variety of upgrades that aren’t yet funded. (internal IRST, conformal fuel tanks, missile warning system, weapons pod for reduced RCS, up-rated engines for speed, potentially the Growler’s EW receivers…) If a buyer stepped forward to fund all those upgrades the resulting aircraft would be second to none among 4th generation aircraft, but the price would climb significantly.
Long and short of things , I see things like this……we currently use a plane that by your own addmission is still decent and viable…for a HUGE cost increase we get a plane that carries more fuel…..BUT that said plane, by your own statement is ONLY MACH .3 faster than our 25 year old CF188’s, it has UNTRIED and uncertain stats, any F35 that Canada would use will cost HUGE amounts extra just for a A2A fueling system compatable with our current tankers, and will need to wait on development and testing of an as of yet NOT developed Drag Chute and system, ( for snow packed airfield landings etc) that will no doubt be far down the line in priorities…and a lower altitude / lower level speed where again you have stated you figure the CF188 will be superior?…correct?…so WHY should this be considered a better plane than the 25 year old one we have?……it is NOT OUTSTANDINGLY better in performance, it has many questions that need more testing and proving and implimentation, and although it is NEW, it has brand new avionics that are no doubt far superior to 25 yrs ago, the cost is way way to high for what Canada needs…..in all honesty, we would do better with MORE actual airplanes of a Gen4.5 that better meet our costs, operational needs and expectations I guess…….
SEE, now I can understand that the Dutch volunteered to stay as part of the testing…..otherwise it made no sense at all…..and for sure the weather is better in desert climates……
Top speed isn’t the most important metric here. An F-4 Phantom could go M2.2, again when clean… but nobody is wishing they were back.
The F-35 is an unfinished aircraft… no question. Buyers have to decide whether they are willing to put up with all the snags that come with a new aircraft or whether they want to buy a “finished” product off the shelf. Both approaches have merit.
The drag chute is being paid for by Norway, illustrating one of the advantages of participating in a program like the F-35. (and it will be ready before Canada goes operational) Fitting an F-35A with a refueling probe would certainly cost some money, but it shouldn’t be that expensive given that the same probe is already being developed for the F-35C. (we aren’t talking about a clean-sheet design)
You could get a 4th generation aircraft for less. The Super Hornet in particular would be a value proposition… but everything is a balance of cost and capability.
hopsalotSee this is where I get confused….I am SURE that the CF188 Hornet ( Canadian designation)…flys at MACH 1.8 @ 36,100 ft and has a ceiling of 50,000 ft……
By the way the Cf18’s under went substantial upgrades including the MIL-STD 1760 interface for the AIM 120 and JDAM family and use integrated Joint Helmet mounted Cueing Systems, the LINK 16 system and use the LM “Sniper XR’s” and the An / ARC Stored management for use with the latest PGM’s….I mean it’s an old airframe for sure…..but it is still in active service and doing the jobs put before it….Ideally the two phase upgrades will have allowed them to keep flying actively until at least 2020 and perhaps slightly beyond.
No as I understand it the F35 only has a top speed of MACH 1.6 and was tested out to MACH 1.61….well in my math…that is LESS than MACH 1.8, correct?…..
See these charts that were already provided earlier in this thread:
Time to post one of my favourite graphs again 🙂
As you can see, the Super Hornet comes close to Mach 1.6 armed with 4 AAMs ie not faster than F-35. And that is without any pylons on the wing or fuel tanks. For comparison, your legacy Hornet is a bit faster. Still the Hornets family strong point isn’t speed. Nor range for that matter. F-35 ferry range is unknown. 1200nm is simply combat radius x2 ie combat range.
If they manage to add another 2 AAMs to the 4 internally carried (planned iirc), and find a way for 2 of those to be AIM-9, you have a Mach 1.6 jet armed with the typical 4+2 AAMs. Better than the Hornet in any case.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232692[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]232693[/ATTACH]
An F/A-18 is capable of reaching M1.8, but only when it isn’t carrying anything at all.
As you add weapons and fuel for real world operations performance drops markedly. (as illustrated above)
The F-35 will be capable of carrying 6 internal missiles, always carries an internal IRST/targeting pod equivalent, and always carries far more fuel than an F/A-18 even with a centerline tank. That means that when an F-35 takes off it is essentially in configuration #4 of the chart above. (though the F-35 would have far greater range) That means that where an F-35 is capable of M1.6, an F/A-18 would only be able to reach M1.35. If the F/A-18 dropped its drop tank when it detected trouble, that would get it to configuration #3, where it could reach M1.45, still well short of the F-35.
The bottom line is that in the real world an F-35 will be faster than an F/A-18 unless the F/A-18 is carrying almost nothing, including fuel.
As well, the F35’s performance, manouverability etc. rate of climb etc, DECLINE at high speeds and altitudes correct?……is that a fair assumption?……
That all depends. Top speeds will be reached at relatively high altitude (as you can see in the chart above, ~36k ft), peak maneuverability occurs at lower altitude. (this is true of essentially all fighters, though different aircraft are optimized for different speeds and altitudes)
The F/A-18 and F-35 are actually quite similar in that both are optimized for relatively slow speed and low altitude performance. (Whereas an aircraft like the Typhoon is optimized for high speeds and altitudes.)
so, as old as our 25 year old ‘sh CF188’s are, are they really THAT incapable?….and I would NEVER say that the CF188 is a “yard stick” to measure anything on…but from any info I have and have read….it matches or excells the F35, at altitude and speed, and certainly out manouvers the F35 AT Altitude and high speed, but suffers somewhat from a smaller range, is that a fair assumption to make?……..
so how does that equate to better interception performance by the F35 vs. CF188 Hornet?
F/A-18s are still capable and modern aircraft, but they are at about the limit of what can be done with them through upgrades and they are using up their fatigue life.
In real world operations the F-35 is faster, far longer-ranged, and would accelerate and climb better under most circumstances. (The F-35 would also have far better avionics in essentially every respect.)
Neither of these aircraft provides stellar high speed/high altitude performance. Both should have good low-speed low-altitude handling and nose-pointing ability, but the F/A-18 is going to be stronger performer there. The F/A-18 remains one of the world’s strongest performers at this type of handling.
See for example this article about improvements proposed to allow the Eurofighter (an aircraft that already excels at high-speed/high-altitude performance) to close the gap with the F/A-18 doing what it does best.
Laurie Hilditch, head of future capabilities at Eurofighter, says the modification kit should give the aircraft the sort of “knife-fight in a phone box” turning capability enjoyed by rivals such as Boeing’s F/A-18E/F or the Lockheed Martin F-16, without sacrificing the transonic and supersonic high-energy agility inherent to its delta wing-canard configuration.
Is there an ONLINE link to that article, sounds like an interesting read…
out of curiousity, how long do the Dutch F35’s , I believe F-001 and F-002?….have to remain at Elgin Air Force Base? then they get transfered to Edwards AFB in California “eventually”?…WHY, I’m not sure I understand that theory at all….if the Dutch OWN the planes, and they have instructors being trained IN the USA now, well since 2013….why not take the planes to the Netherlands and train the pilots there?…in THEIR climate, conditions and airbases? seems a strange way of training to me…so EVERY Dutch Pilot for F35 is required to go to the USA for how long?…to be trained? NEVER heard of a system like that before….usually once an injstructor cadre is trained, the rest get trained in the home Nation….why is this different?
The Dutch can do what they want with their planes. They are participating in the test phase of the F-35 program and have actually purchased an early production aircraft to do so. Like many other users they will also choose to conduct training in the US where there is a larger training infrastructure, not to mention better weather…
hopsalotHow is interception performance lower when an armed F-35 is faster and offers more range?
True the F404-400 equipped F-18 is not the yardstick for modern fighter performance but it is what Canada currently flies and at least the F-35 managed to beat that.Here’s a quote from an article in Combat Aircraft Nov. 2014, from a Dutch F-35 pilot: “The F-35A turns like a heavyweight F-16, but climbs, descends and accelerates like a clean one.” I would read that as mixed signals…
Hmmm, there is that “clean F-16” thing again. Of course we all know that this actual F-35 (and presumably F-16) pilot can’t be correct as experts on this very message board have fully debunked any possibility of such performance.
Just for fun, lets suppose for a second he weren’t lying…
Suppose an F-35 with enough fuel to out-range this:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232756[/ATTACH]
Could accelerate and climb like this:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232757[/ATTACH]
Of course an aircraft like that would be totally inadequate for even routine air policing.
hopsalotwho cares what you think or say……..personally I couldn;t care WHAT aircraft Canada buys…as long as it is NOT the POS F35…..
There, see? Was that so hard? All you had to do is say from the start that you weren’t here to actually discuss aircraft but were instead essentially projecting a Canadian domestic political debate into the world of aviation.
You could have saved everyone a lot of time trying to straighten you out.
hopsalotThe Typhoon II has logged NO mission hours during actual combat, the closest it came was post air campaign “patrol” in Libya
Anyway, details…
hopsalotSaddly, although, in your opinion “nobody in the West is interested”….the Gripen has more actual airframes flying Operationally the the F35 has total production at this point… Brazil ( certainly WEST, southern hemisphere, but still west) has just signed a deal with SAAB for the Gripen, Brazil is trying a deal with Argentina, wise, even feasible or a pipe dream, interest is there in Argentina. Canada has NOT ruled out the Gripen and like the others are waiting to find out the result of the delayed decision on the “reboot” and an open competition. Again, that does not sound like “Nobody is interested in these continental European Canards”…especially if further upgrades etc. see performance and options make it an even faster , better handling and capable option.
A few bits of data for your consideration. The Gripen went out of production in 2012 and will not return to production.
When you hear people talking about the possibility of Canada buying Gripens what they are generally referring to is the Gripen NG (AKA Gripen E), an as-yet unflown aircraft derived from the original Gripen but with a newer engine and essentially entirely new avionics. The Gripen NG is supposed to become operational sometime in the 2020 timeframe.
Of all of the options out there for Canada the Gripen NG is the least tested.
One motivating factor for everyone involved is that production has begun. It is simply more tangible and substantial now. The assembly of the first fuselage sections for test aircraft 39-8 started before the summer of 2013 and the design department and the workshops are fully engaged in developing and producing components for Gripen E.
Facts: major milestones
— 2014: the various Gripen E parts will be assembled to form a complete aircraft.
— 2015: the first test flights are planned for 39-8, the first aircraft built according to Gripen E specifications.
— 2018: the first series-produced aircraft delivered under contract.
http://globalaviationreport.com/2014/04/30/gripen-e-production-is-fully-underway/
Don’t forget!
Someday, I am sure that the F35 will be spectacular, will that make it the right choice for every Country?…no, will it be great plane capable of living up to it;s EXPECTED / POTENTIAL capabilities, I am sure it will…but until measurable ability is met, it remains in the realm of estimated / expected potential, not fact.
I’m sorry ,but that is how my mind works, I cannot look at promises and expectations on paper and take that as fact…..it;s like saying a teenager has the POTENTIAL to get high 90’s for marks in all subjects at school, however, in reality his performance is much different, gaining 50’s and 60’s. So he still retains the POTENTIAL, but FACTUAL PERFORMANCE is markedly less. So what is the end result for the student?…..does he graduate on POTENTIAL or Factually graded ability and effort….was the discrepancy between the POTENTIAL and the Factual Ability caused by over assessment of the Potential initially, where all the factors accounted for? or was it that the student simply didn;t try because he found teenage girls more interesting…
I know, a bizzare way of explaining it…….I guess the old adage ” a bird in the hand, is better than two in the Bush”….fact vs. speculation
:highly_amused:
hopsalotLool!! Is that a joke?
Of course, you have to read the discussion with the Canadian guy on the previous couple pages…
hopsalotI definitely could. Except we both know that what I am talking about ain’t fiction.. BTW, I have never taken you seriously, you can spare me the reciprocity..
If you had I would almost have to start doubting myself.
Of course. Singapore is not paying $12.3bil for 71 jets. Korea is not playing $7bil for 40 aircraft. Netherlands is not paying ~6bil for 37 F-35s. All just made up..
Did Singapore sign a contract? I must have missed that.
Your inability to understand that the contracts that are signed include a great deal beyond just the airframes became tiresome long ago. In the Korean case for example it includes a new satellite…
(Reuters) – Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) said it will buy a European-built military communications satellite for South Korea as part of a $7 billion deal to supply Seoul with 40 F-35 fighter jets, in what industry observers call among the most unusual “offset” agreements ever to accompany a major arms sale.
Lockheed, which builds its own satellites, declined to detail the cost of the new satellite or name its manufacturer, but said the spacecraft would provide a “state-of-the-art” system that met South Korea’s military requirements.
“The Lockheed Martin offset commitment … directly benefits Korean national defense requirements, enables substantial Korean industrial activity and transfers a large amount of high technology to the Republic of Korea,” Lockheed said.
Steve Over, director of international business development for the F-35 program, said Lockheed would buy and launch the satellite by 2017, including all necessary control equipment and technical training. He declined to give further details.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/26/us-lockheed-fighter-southkorea-idUSKCN0HL2FS20140926
They don’t come anywhere close to $250mil. They do go over $120mil a pop, though. Which is too much. Together with $18k / hour operating cost the future of Euro airforces looks like this:
http://beyluxe.com/articles/money/austrian-air-force-cant-afford-its-pilots-
Of course they cost $250+ million, after-all, I just made that number up, which makes it just as valid as the numbers you like to throw out.
:applause:
hopsalotOk, listen up. I live in Northern part of Norway. If you guys study our coastal line, you will find our Airbases pretty much located near the coast. That means one important issue:
UNSTABLE CLIMAT, strong wind and Wet elements during winter. This in turn makes our roads, runways and equipment covered in a glaciour slippery icy condition that you will have a hard time locate anywhere else.
My point is, deep inlands in both Russia and Canada you have stable DRY climat during winter, which doesn’t produce the ice we are talking about.
I’ll pick ÷ 20c dry snow over 0c ice with melted water on top any day, when i’m driving my car.I’ll hope this help put things into perspective when we are debating drag shute on our F16 and F35.
Don’t be silly, it doesn’t get cold or icy in Norway, only in Canada.
hopsalotHopsalot,
Firstly everything that you post drips with your nationality…..to people the world over, it would be immediately and obviously clear……secondly YOUR facts…are far from Factual, they are simply YOUR opinion…”debate”, there is no debate not with Americans in general and certainly not with you…
I am an American. I have never denied that, nor do I have any reason to. The good news is that facts know no nationality. Reality as they say is that which remains when you stop believing.
You have come in here typing a lot, while saying very little. You have made many assertions that are quite simply factually inaccurate, and further that demonstrate that you lack even a remedial understanding of this subject matter.
I have formed the impression that for you this is essentially an argument about Canadian domestic politics. Rest assured that we in the US have many people equally irrational when it comes to their political views and so I am quite familiar with the type.
Your points are laughable…..the F-18 IS a fighter, a decent one as well….one that has survived the run and flown the missions…the F35 is a “model”…NONE are operational…it hasn;t done anything except fly around…….well so does a Cessna, and to be honest the F35 has more incommon with a cessna than a Military Aircraft at this point.
I would say that the F/A-18 is better than a decent fighter. As for the F-35, you are once again correct, the F-35 is not yet operational. That isn’t scheduled to take place until next summer. :dev2:
As for the Cessna…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232718[/ATTACH]
My money is on the F-35. :sleeping:
Your assertations that a MILITARY decision becomes “political”…..REALLY the USA is so stupid that they let moronic cretins from the Senate or Congress decide WHERE MILITARY assets should be Stationed?…..POLITICAL?…absolutely stupid…never mind the actual Military reasoning behind something…lets let idiots make the decision to either pay back a favour or pull votes….pathetic reasoning…..
The US military ultimately answers to civilian authorities, principally the President, and Congress. Congress can and does override the Pentagon when it suits them:
And NO, it doesn;t have ANYTHING to do with Skiing, that was just a VERY true little story to show how little the Average American knows about Canada…
Are you sure it doesn’t have anything to do with skiing?
And I am sorry, putting an airplane in a freezer and dribbling some water on it to make ice does NOT “test” an aircraft…..when the winds are howling at 30 miles and hour and the sleet and snow is driving near horizontally…yeh, that is testing the aircraft…..
Do you have experience designing or testing aircraft? Do you actually think that all they do is put an airplane in a freezer and dribble water on it?
Need I remind you again that these are aircraft that are going to be operating in the arctic in the winter?
Your reply to Msphere regarding the “latest batch just ordered” is idiotic…..how would YOU have any idea of what was ordered by whom and what their costing will be?……especially when Nations considering PLACING orders don;t know what the costs will be!……Orders are nothing…cancelling at any time is an option……and considering that the BIGGEST Partner in this joke is the UK and they have gotten…how many?…..the USAF has HOW many?… Australia I am sure will like their ONE, at some point once the US and LM decide to give it to them……it;s farsical….costs and orders and such are BS and speculation …Funny…where is the official press releases from those Nations saying YES, we have NOW ordered our F35’s?….there is NONE
Your ignorance is almost enduring, though your inability to express yourself in a written medium does detract somewhat from that.
If you want to know who has jets ordered in the latest batch, LRIP-8, go to the link below and scroll down to “LRIP-8.” 😮
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/13567/f-35_fast_facts_%28october_2014%29.pdf
Ah, but the cost! How could I possibly know the cost?! :confused:
Lets see… ah yes… Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSKCN0IC2LY20141023
(the mathematically inclined could also take the $98 million each F-35 cost in LRIP 7, as per the first link, and subtract from that the ~4% price drop in the latest batch leaving the airframe at roughly $95 million, without engine…)
Finally, if you want to know how many F-35s have been delivered and to whom, once again I direct your attention to the first link. (107 F-35s delivered as of 8 Oct 2014)
You know, the quiet Canadian is slowly going by the wayside…..mostly because if we don;t speak up, then people just try to bulldoze THEIR opinions and points of view down our throats….Not ONCE have you considered anything I have said…you just toss it all aside because it doesn;t fit YOUR theory….and you know what, why should I waste tact and grace on your posts…..you have been the one right from the start that has come out slamming everything…even when it is put in front of you that your wrong…you just keep bulldozing right along…..so perhaps my temporary lack of tact and grace is due to your over bearing and domainering attitude towards this thread and others posts, not even just mine…… tact, politeness and grace are reciprocal, perhaps when YOU start to show even a remote amount of respect for others posts and opinions, even those that disagree with yours, you may experience that being returned….. Being a Canadian does not mean that we are to become a dog to be kicked around…Canadians do have backbones….and have shown them many many times
Canada, when last I checked, was right where I left it.
This doesn’t really have anything to do with opinions. We frankly haven’t reached a point where opinions come into play. Thus far I have occupied myself with correcting your innumerable misstatements of fact. You don’t know what you are talking about here and are in a word ignorant. This is nothing to be ashamed of as it is the natural human condition, but to deny your ignorance is reprehensible.
If you want to learn, ask questions. If you just want to rant about Canadian politics, find a Canadian political rag.
you know, I DO feel bad for Myself, for my usually very rational and calm demenor being rattled and upset by the likes of you…..your simply the epitomy of the “Loud American”…..no wonder so many Americans sew Canadian Flags onto their coats and luggage when they travel around the world….too bad it gives Canadian a bad rep. right up until those Americans open the mouths…..
Do I seem less than calm? You are new here and so perhaps don’t realize you aren’t the first of you we have seen. A steady stream of hyper-opinionated ranting types fall through the door here here, vent their spleen about topics they don’t have a firm grasp of, and then generally stumble back down whatever alley brought them here.
Sign In
