LokeThe F-35 has stealth, which would allow it to monitor aircraft near Canadian airspace without revealing itself if it so chose.
The F-35 will have satellite comms integrated internally. (it won’t need the pod Canadian F-18s currently carry.)
Has the F-22 been used to monitor aircraft near US airspace “without revealing itself”? I can think of many scenarios where stealth would be very useful but I must admit this is not the first that comes to my mind!
Gripen NG will have satcom integrated; will it not work in Canada?
For the other points, I mostly agree; however one should note that again you do the mistake of looking for the “best” plane. Instead one should have requirements and compare requirements to those. It may not be that important that e.g. range is much bigger for a/c A compared to a/c B; the most important thing is whether A and B meet the requirements or not. Canada is a large country and perhaps the range of Gripen E will be too small; but it should be related to the requirements of Canadian air force, and not to the range of the F-35… I hope you get my point.
LokeThis discussion is silly.
Of course the Canadian Air Force wants the F-35, just like I would like replace my Toyota with a Tesla model X.
As stated before; if the price is not too high they will get it.
Most likely also Denmark and Finland.
(If they decide the price is too high most likely Denmark will go for the SH IMHO).
How is the Canadian dollar doing these days? Norwegian krona has dropped like a rock the last 1-2 years, and unless the oil price recovers the Norwegian F-35 will become much more expensive than originally anticipated. The Norwegian Navy and Army people are very frustrated, the know they will have to pay a very high price for the 52 Norwegian F-35 (our government refuse to spend more money on defence and something has to give — it will not be the F-35).
LokeNo, they really aren’t. Yes, Canada has big cold spaces but as I have already said, past a point it doesn’t matter anymore, you need multiple bases.
A Swedish, Norwegian, American, or British pilot that ejects over cold water is going to be just as dead, just as fast as a Canadian. No helicopter will get there in time to fish them out.
The requirements for the TFCS are:
9 G sustained with high onset rate, at least 30 s after 6 G/s and at least 7 G after a gradual (0.1 G/s) onset without anti-G straining manoeuvre
Biological and chemical warfare protection
High altitude protection, including explosive decompression
Arctic climate and cold water survival
High temperatures (fire) protection both in cockpit and on the ground
Air blast protection for ejection speeds up to 600 kt
Thermal protection
http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/suit/tfcs.html
LokeOf course any air force would prefer a stealthy 5. gen a/c — just like any air force would prefer the F-15 over the F-16.
If the costs come down sufficiently then it becomes a no-brainer.
The only 4.5 gen a/c that is mature and seems to have decent capabilities is the Rafale — however it is very expensive, and it’s French.
Rafale is amazing and very capable. However the F-35 will probably become even more capable once it becomes fully operational, and will probably be slightly cheaper. So even if Rafale were to meet the Canadian requirements most likely F-35 will be preferred; it’s American, more survivable and will not be more expensive.
LokeThose requirements were written specifically to ensure that only the F-35 can meet them, or play to it’s relative (unproven) strengths.
Yes I agree, in particular this one:
The possession of stealth capabilities that make detection by enemy sensor systems exceedingly difficult.
In case somebody doubts this requirement is tailormade for F-35 consider the following “gedankenexperiment”:
Imagine that instead of building the F-35, the USAF had ordered a “super F-16”. In such a situation no a/c with “stealth capabilities” would have been available. Do you think this would have meant that the Canadian Air Force would not be able to find a new jet to replace the Hornets? Of course not. They simply would have had to accept one of the others.
I wonder if stealth really was an official requirement in Canada though; if it were (or is) then it makes the evaluation committee look rather silly.
In Norway they did not make such a mistake. Instead they made other requirements that were very difficult (or impossible) to meet without stealth, but without mentioning stealth explicitly. This was even admitted by one of the members of the committee, who made a comment without really thinking through what he was saying…
LokeA country as large as Brazil will most likely need more than 36 a/c… I think the Brazilian assembly line will be kept open quite some time to come.
I would also expect Gripens sold to other countries in Latin America to be assembled in Brazil.
LokeYes, the F-35 is a much better funded program, which makes sense when you consider it is developing 3 5th generation airframes.
The greater resources were actually part of my point in the first place though. Only a couple dozen Rafales have AESAs…. zero operational Typhoons or Gripens. No, life isn’t fair.
Do the Eurocanards need more AESAs as of today though, or can they perform the missions they are tasked with today given the sensors they got today?
That’s the question one should ask, not who has the shiniest toys.
LokeAsk the F-35 program’s current director for advice, and you’ll get this gentle warning: joint programs are hard.
“I’m not saying they’re bad. I’m not saying they’re good. I’m just saying they’re hard,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Thursday. “[Y]ou ought to think really hard about what you really need out of the sixth-generation fighter and how much overlap is there between what the Navy and the Air Force really need.”
When the F-35 was conceived in the 1990s, the goal was to buy a common plane for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and even America’s allies. The Air Force version would fly from traditional runways, the Navy version would operate from aircraft carriers, and the Marine version would be built to take off from short runways and land vertically. The goal was to have all three have 70 percent of their parts in common, which was meant to save billions of dollars in development and logistics costs.
But engineering changes have produced three variants that have only 20 percent of their parts in common, Bogdan said at a conference sponsored by McAleese and Associates and Credit Suisse.
Only 20% in common?
That must be wrong?
LokeThe Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) has awarded a performance based logistics (PBL) contract to GKN Aerospace to provide support services for the national Armed Forces’ JAS 39 Gripen fighter aircraft.
A follow-on from an initial five year RM12 PBL agreement, the new agreement requires the company to support the operations for JAS 39 Gripen C/D users for a period of four years.
Additionally, the company will ensure engine availability for every Swedish Air Force mission, as well as for Gripen C/D export customers that includes the Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand.
The contract covers the provision for technical product support, maintenance, repair and overhaul, repair development and spare parts supply.
GKN Aerospace bought Volvo Aero in 2012; presumably this will be done by the “old” Volvo Aero in Sweden.
LokeMore than 60 per cent of the development of the two-seat Gripen NG will take place in Brazil, as will the production. A full 80 per cent of flight testing will take place in Brazil.
The Brazilian aviation manufacturer Embraer is one of six partner companies that have been selected. The industrial cooperation will start with 150 Brazilians coming to Saab’s facility in Linköping, Sweden, for education and what is known as ‘on-the-job training’, where they will work in parallel on different projects. This phase began in autumn 2015 and will continue for a number of years, after which personnel move gradually back to Brazil with their newly acquired knowledge. During this phase Saab employees will accompany them to build up operations in Brazil.
LokeThe decision to operate a mixed fleet is not necessarily about sustainment costs. Other reasons to have a mixed fleet include;
– The cost of replacing old airframes is a bigger factor in having a mixed fleet against a single type, many nations cannot afford the number of new aircraft required for fleet rationalisation. For third world countries, often the only airframes that come their way are gifted or refurbished second hand, in those cases you take what you can get.
– The political case as with Malayisa, where they acquired both MiG-29 and F/A-18D in the mid 90s, and suffered issues with both fleets ever since.
– Capability issues. Many of these nations that operate mixed fleet do so with aircraft that really only have a primary role, so a defined interceptor aircraft that has little capability for ground attack or vice versa.
– Final point to note is that what the country intends to do with the aircraft very much effects what they operate and to what standard. For expeditionary air forces having standardisation and commonality is very important. If the air force never goes anywhere and has no real readiness applied to them, then they are more likely to operate whatever they can get and will keep older airframes for longer.
Looking at those countries you mentioned, Malaysia as I said has an element of buying political. They could easily harmonise around a single type but haven’t. They could standardise around the SU-30MKM to replace both the F-18 and MiG-29 but instead are looking at another fighter from the west including Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen or SH.
Thailand received half of their F-16s second hand and had even agreed to purchase F/A-18s in the late 90s before they ran out of money. They have every chance to standardise around the Gripen but not sure yet if they will.
Singapore is a rich country and has the ability to operate quite a diverse fleet, albeit with a lot of it based in the US and training conducted in the US, Australia and possibly still in France. They chose F-15SGs to fulfil a specific need and are slowly phasing out the F-5s so they will become a F-15/16 fleet only.
Good to know that politics will not play a role in the Canadian selection!
If they can afford 65 F-35 then it becomes a no-brainer.
Your comment regarding Singapore is also very interesting: “they chose F-15SG to fulfil a specific need” — well one could argue that choosing F-35 is also to fulfil a “specific need”; which is the need for stealth.
Even the USAF may now start to back-peddle when they say that replacing the A-10 with F-35 is not going to be cost-effective.
Whether it makes sense for Canada to go for mixed fleet or not will depend on many factors including the cost differential between the “hi” and the “lo” in a “hi/lo” mix.
LokeI wouldn’t classify South Korea as a “small” country — but otherwise I agree.
LokeIt seems that a mixed fleet is indeed very expensive — but that makes it even more puzzling that small countries like Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand all can operate mixed fleets.
How can they do that?
Loke“We are developing our swing role capability. But the air-to-ground training is mainly to support our industrial export”, explained Bertoli.
http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/8115
Danish blogger is visiting Red Flag to view Typhoon’s performance.
Hopefully he will write something more interesting from his visit, and not just make fun of Col. Bertoli!
Loke“We have conveyed our concerns. The government is seized of the problem. It signed the 36 aircraft (Rafale) on G2G basis because of the depletion in squadron numbers,” Dhanoa, a Kargil war veteran, said.
Asked if there is requirement for more Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft type aircraft besides the 36 Rafales, he said: “Various avenues are being explored. There is need to buy a MMRCA class aircraft more than the 36 numbers that we have signed. Which platform may come in, that is something between us and the government. We (both) will have to take a call,” he said.
Deputy Chief of the IAF Air Marshal R K S Bhadauria said a decision on buying more aircraft will be taken only after the conclusion of the contract for 36 Rafale fighter jets.
IAF officers said Rafale will significantly enhance the capability of the IAF.
To beef up the IAF, the defense ministry will procure 120 indigenous Tejas Light Combat aircraft. Of the 120, 100 will come with 43 improvements over the existing Tejas, currently being test-flown by the IAF for various parameters and slated for final operation clearance in March.
The first upgraded Tejas is scheduled to be produced in 2018 and the target is to complete the requirement by 2022-2023.
Tejas will fill the void created by aging MiG-21s and MiG-27s that will be phased out by 2022.
There are 260 Soviet-era single-engine MiG-21 and MiG-27 jets in the IAF fleet. The Air Force needs at least 400 additional jets over the next 10 years.
The government is also exploring getting fighter jets through the ‘Make in India’ route.
A number of fighter jet manufacturers have approached the defense ministry with plans to set up production plants in India.
http://atimes.com/2016/03/india-air-force-says-cant-fight-china-pakistan-at-the-same-time/
It seems the IAF is still optimistic the Rafale deal will be signed. And they still talk about the need for more “medium multirole combat aircraft”. It will be interesting to see how this evolves. Does the mentioning of “medium” hint at either SH or F-16, as opposed to Gripen NG or Mig-35?
Sign In
