HotshotYes missiles have gotten far smaller and far more capable as a result of advancing technology. For example the Cuda concept called for a missile half the size of an AMRAAM and yet with greater range. (The AMRAAM meanwhile is far smaller and longer ranged than the Sparrow it replaced.)
If you want a rough idea of what current technology allows in the realm of miniature missiles look at MANPADS as they are the smallest anti-air missiles anyone has actually brought into service. They may not be BVR weapons, but is that important?
If you embraced the swarm of relatively small inexpensive drones concept do they need a BVR capability?
The catch here is cost. The more capable you make the drone and its sensors and weapons the more expensive it gets. If you want a supersonic stealth drone with a capable radar, IRST, EW system, decent range/endurance, etc… well it won’t be much cheaper than a traditional fighter with those same things.
What are you willing to give up?
In terms of miniaturization the MHTK is already in development and is amazingly small, 2.2 kg, 61cm long, with a datalink.
Perhaps they could use such a small missile with an small IIR seeker mounted on a booster with larger diameter to give it a BVR range.
If a radar is needed for a HTK, a larger diameter is probably needed, so perhaps a 70mm mini missile, 5kg 80cm long or something like that, with a miniaturized radar, mounted on a booster.
The drones need to have the ability to talk to each other, so a directional datalink is needed, no wway around that. As for its size and the sensors capability, it might be better to have something that can engage in BVR, maybe with a radar range of up to 50km. Making it capable of high subsonic and stealthy could be a good trade-off in terms of capabilities, stealth and cost.
Pehaps even the missile could have a larger booster to have up to 100km range, say around 50kg ( 5kg mini HTK missile mounted on a 50kg booster ). That would compensate for the subsonic speed and allow for coordinated attacks from several drones at long range thanks to the datalink.
HotshotThe CUDA is even too large. I’m thinking of something maybe 3 times smaller. Such a missile may possibly be manufacturable in 10-20 years. I think what would be important is that the aircraft sends frequent target update in the last kms, because the missile would acquire its target relatively close due to its small sensor.
HotshotF-35C wings are also larger than F-35B, 13 meters against 10.7.
Going from 10.7m to 7.7m would be a 30% reduction, so the carrier could carry about 35% more aircraft. I think for a CVN there is enough space for larger aircraft but the STOVL carriers are smaller, so it would make a big difference. Now does the carrier have enough logistics, fuel and weapons for so many F-35Bs that’s another story, the QEs probably, the smaller carriers not sure.
HotshotDenmark the size of Quebec LOL! Quebec is 1 542 056 sq km, thank you very much. About 3 times as large as France! 🙂
HotshotThe whole idea is ludicrous. (though perhaps slightly less so than suggesting the F-106…) The Gripen is fundamentally unsuitable for Canada’s requirements. It is a tiny jet with literally half the thrust of an original Hornet, itself not a particularly large plane. It simply isn’t a design that lends itself to long-range operation and it isn’t capable of carrying a large radar that would be useful when performing long-range intercepts or cruise missile defense. There is also zero economic case for participation in the Gripen program because the plane is being produced only in tiny numbers. The entire Gripen E order book is only ~100 planes.
If Canada were interested in investing the billions of dollars it would take to develop a new variant of an existing fighter they would be far better served to just buy an F-15E variant… an aircraft that already has the range, sensors, interoperability that Canada would want. (Or obviously the F-35, which while not as long-ranged as the F-15E, is still significantly longer ranged than the F-18s Canada has been using for decades and offers a whole range of other advantages I don’t need to repeat here.)
The gripen NG has a pretty good range:
From SAAB’s website:
Combat Range and Radius
Thanks to its increased fuel capacity, the Gripen NG in the Combat Air Patrol configuration achieves a combat radius of 800 nm (nautical miles), or 1.500 km, from the base of operations, with more than 30 minutes “on station”. It has a ferry range of 2200 nm (4.000 km).
An AESA radar would have a pretty good range against a bomber, around 250km or so I would guess, which is plenty to use a meteor.
The gripen has a worst TTW ratio than the hornet but a more advanced aerodynamics.
As for arctic operation, Sweeden has a similar climate and operates it.
I am not even talking here about a interceptor derivative ( say stretched delta with conformal fuselage stations like on the F-15 for instance to reduce drag) that Canada could have built for its own requirements.
Hotshotthe gripen E is gripen C +40% fuel, its already built
The gripen E won’t be in service before several years and Canada would have to pay the big price to get it.
Had Canada asked Sweeden 15 years ago to make a derivative of the gripen C, they would probably have accepted, the gripen E would already be in service and Canada would be building parts of it, including for international customers. Instead they chose to embark in the F-35 program which is not well adapted for the RCAF needs.
HotshotYou’d want something really small and cheap otherwise you can’t built enough of them to make a difference.
Canada has the know-how to design and build wings, no doubt, it doesn’t have the funds to build the entire plane.
The gripen C is the smallest and cheapest, it could be a base for a canadian derivative. for instance a larger fuselage with 50% more fuel, or CFTs. It’s not because a plane is small that it necessarily has a short range, it’s small but it burns less fuel!
Building a prototype would surely not cost that much, GD developped the XL wing and built 2 sets on its own funds, so it is not the end of the world. The problem with larger wings is that it requires more flight testing than modifying the fuselage.
HotshotFor air defense Canada would be better off with more cheaper planes to cover its huge territory. I would have looked into the possibility of modifying an extisting 4 gen for that. Like a F-16XL, or an gripen C with CFTs and a AESA. The number of missiles carried wouldn’t be very important since the russians bombers would probably spread their bombers over very large distances, so it would be kind of hard to intercept more than one at a time.
The development work and production for a customized parts would have created jobs for the canadian industry.
130 gripen Cs with AESA, CFTs, and armed with like 2 meteors and 2 AIM-9s would have been better suited than 65 F-35s or super hornets.
HotshotThe F-35B wings are full of fuel all the way to the tip.
The F-35C wings are full of fuel only to the wing fold. The folding outboard sections don’t have fuel tanks in them. This is because folding fuel tanks leak and leaking fuel is a bad thing on a ship where one worries about fire at sea. Besides, the outboard wing is very thin and doesn’t hold much fuel, but does have a small spoiler to counter wing drop.
If it can’t carry fuel in the folding part that’s a significant drawback indeed and maybe not Worth the trade-off. The folding mechanism would add some weight but the folding part would have a lighter structure because there would be no heavy hardpoint so that would compensate.
The light station on the outboard folding part could also be used to carry light a2g weapons if the WVR missile is not needed, like one brimstone, one SDB or a small APKWS pod. That would be better than nothing.
HotshotI can think of several reasons contra folding wings:
– Cost, obviously.
– Weight, the F-35B has very small weight margins. Remember SWAT.
– Not much to gain. Look at this nice picture, the wings would fold just outside the outer A/G pylons reducing span by maybe 1.7 m.
I was thinking of folding the wing outside of the first wing station. That would reduce the wingspan by about 3m. That would decrease the external payload but if the F-35B is used mainly from the STOVL carriers, and/or if it is used most of the time only with internal payload that would be a good compromise.
I think keeping at least one heavy wing station would be important though.
HotshotFrom looking at those pictures of the F-35s stationned on the amphib carrier, it looks like the F-35 has a relatively large wingspan. With folding wings, the carrier could have carried more. Maybe if the wing had folded after the first wing pylons, it would have been a good compromise. There would have been just one light station outboard for the AIM-9X. Maybe the LHAs/LHDs could have carried about 4 more planes in aircraft carrier configuration. Depends if they want to use their amphibs as carriers regularly I guess, and it they want to use them in stealth configuration most of the time.
HotshotAnd which senor would you use? HMS is not a sensor in itself. So anyway you will need to upgrade avionics to process MLD data.
If it uses an HMS the MLD is not needed.
This being said, it would be good if the MLD could be used like the DAS, at least to warn the pilot that an aircraft is approaching, and maybe to project on the helmet where the target is. The pilot would ID the target visually. The MLD doesn’t have the same range as the F35’s DAS but it could help avoid surprise attacks at close range. How much would it cost to upgrade the system for that and would it be worth it I don’t know.
And if the MLD can track targets, it would make sense to cue the AIM9X seeker for identification for near BVR range. The upgrade would cost more than just using the HMS alone.
HotshotComparing the F-18 with the others is a bit unfair, as it is a carrier aircraft. An F-18L would have had better acceleration, turn rate, load carrying capacity. The F-18 had the best radar of the bunch, and maybe also the best cockpit, I think it would have been a tough competition.
HotshotYeah, I think it would be cheaper to go with the HMS.
HotshotI wonder how effective the F-22’s helmetless off boresight mode is. Also can the MLD be used to track targets in visual range? I take it it wouldn’t have enough resolution to identify the target, but if it can detect and track it, the AIM-9X seeker can be cued for identification for up to 90 degrees.
Sign In
