SiddarWhich one? The one with lasers strapped to it flying at mach 3 with a cloaking device?
No 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.
Siddar2. Your second point is just plain silly. NORAD and sureveillance aircraft are sufficient to identify threats. The whole point of bomber interception and commercial traffic escort is to actually be seen. I’m sure you can contort some logic hard enough to come up with an extreme case….but you lose alot of credibility by even making this point.
You’re severely underestimating the threat of a sixth generation bomber.
SiddarSo it sounds like B-21 might be using the same engine as the F35.
Bogdan would not confirm whether the F-35 power plant is common with the B-21 engine core, but said Pratt’s work on Northrop Grumman’s B-21 will yield lessons learned that will benefit the F-35
SiddarDid Canada choose the F18 over F16 because of F18 having two engines or because the F18 was a better all weather fighter attack aircraft that was equipped with BVR missiles while F16 lacked BVR missiles for air to air and was a day light only attack aircraft for ground targets?
The selection was made in 1982. Someone with better understanding of the history of when F16 received its first BVR missiles would need to answer that.
My suspicion is F18 was chosen because it was simply was a better multi purpose aircraft in 1982. The fact that it had two engines was only a minor factor.
SiddarIf you view the likely scenario as Canada using its airforce in conjunction with others on international mission the F35 makes perfect sense for that role.
If you view the likely scenario being Canada using its airforce to patrol the north looking for Russian bombers. Then I don’t think any of the available choices are particularly good against a future Russian stealth bomber in the 2030+ time frame. I would expect new Russian bomber by that time to be stealth coupled with a long range multi role radar capable of both air to air and air to ground. That multi role radar coupled with ever increasing air to air missile range, will allow the bomber to carry very long range air to air missiles of 150nm range. If you manage to get in close you will be facing directed energy weapons used both to shoot at you and any missiles you fire.
Arguably this may be to much for any existing fighter to deal with, without using multiple planes as attrition in order to overwhelm the bomber.
Whatever fighter Canada chooses it will have to live with until 2050.
SiddarThe “trends” are irrelevant if you know anything about Canadian ROE. The ability to engage WVR is essential in this country…no matter if it has not taken place recently. If you are a F35 fan fine, but you clearly don’t understand this country nor it’s unique circumstances that make first day strike fighters far less relevant than interceptors. The A2A mission is more relevant and more frequent than bombing over denied air space which could have taken place exactly twice in the last 50 years.
What makes you think F35 isn’t the best WVR fighter on the market? Just mount WVR missile externally and every indication is F35 is well ahead of all other choices in WVR. Its 360 degree sensors and high AoA should provide a decisive advantage in WVR.
SiddarIf Canada requires offsets to buy an aircraft, they’ll get canadian jobs regardless of what they buy. the question is “how many and for how long?”
Offsets are not free they increase the costs of plane being purchased. Boeing and LM have established business in Canada that can be used as offsets without increasing their planes prices. Dassualt and Saab will struggle with the offset requirements increasing the costs of their planes. EAD’s will fall in between the other two groups in regards to offsets increasing price.
Considering the entire reason for having this competition in the first place is based upon a dubious claim of F35 costing to much. It will be very hard for any plane costing more then F35 to win this competition. Higher offset costs for the non american bidder will likely render this a two way competition between Boeing and LM.
SiddarYou need either:
A. A very robust number of stand off cruise weapons
B. Escort Jamming + strikers like growlers and Super Hornets
C. Squadrens of F-35s
D. F-22s
E. B-2S OR SOME stealthy penetrating bomber.
F. A large inventory of air launched decoysKeep in mind in Syria just like other places the S-400s are likely protected by TorM-1 point defenses, or tac air.
Also its likely that if the country has S-400s ISKLANDER is not out of the question.
Now how are you going to get real time tracking for your vaunted ballistic missiles with no access? These S-400s are very mobile.
You need to face the reality that this is the future of war. You should ask your self if your country is prepared. Whats the fastest way to be ready for the threat?
I anticipate that even after the Russians leave that they will leave advanced systems with a follow on government.
Your entire point started with the use of S400 as a offensive weapon threatening planes as soon as they left the runway in there own territory. Your tactics offered as a counter are for offensive operations where the attacking force has ample time to gather in a safe area before entering defended airspace in mass. The above two scenarios are not the same. I outlined some potential responses to the actual scenario you offered up in your original post.
The scenario I offered was passive triangulation of the S400 sight followed by the launch of SRBM onto that location. Forcing the S400 to shut down and flee are be destroyed. Iskander would be doing the exact same thing to patriot systems. Eliminating ground based passive radar detection systems is completely unlikely baring inside intelligence on there location. SRBM will ether be very advanced design to penetrate any counter measure are at the other end very cheap designed to simply overwhelm defenses with shear numbers.
The SRBM on the advanced side will combine ABM counter measures, ARM ability and Surface scan of area in order to locate targets if Radar is turned off.
SiddarROFL, Im not even Russian. I KNOW the correct counter to the S-400. You must be one of the “stealth does work Rafael low level penetration” zealots. Why are you trying to reinvent the wheel in fighting a IADS? We know what works.
Could you make up your mind. First you say S400 is transformational, but now you say it can be dealt with using traditional methods.
SiddarYou do realize that this system can engage short range ballistic missiles right?
SMH. There is an old saying ” A fool is known by his multitude of words”. Atleast keep your mouth closed, to leave us in doubt of you being a fool.
Wow you seem a bit angry about the likely counter to your wonder weapon.
I would place money on passive radar detection system with short ranged ballistic missiles using the latest decoys. Over your Russian wonder weapon trying to engage aircraft at 200 mile range while at the same time also dealing with incoming multiple SRBM using ABM counter measures.
It will an interesting world if you have a future war where Patriot an S400 systems spend more time trying to kill each other then shooting at planes. Because both are the natural carriers of the anti air defense mission I describe.
SiddarHas there ever been a SAM with a 200+ mile engagement zone? By all means let them buy fighters that radiate like a barn.
They are just kidding when they say anti-access. BTW my case stands the weapon system is a generational transformational leap over a SA-2. As soon as you take off your in the missile NEZ.
Yes but the S400 will be spotted and triangulated as soon as it goes active. There will be ground based short ranged ballistic missile ARM fired as soon as S400 fires if not before. The responding missiles will likely reach the S400 before its own missiles can travel 200 miles.
That creates a environment where S400 is completely out of picture at engagements endgame with ability to kill being dependent upon the missiles fired not the ground based parts of the system.
SiddarCanada has effectively screwed itself over.
Yep if they had stuck to there original purchase announcement and hedged the currency risk. They would be paying half of the price they will end up paying now for whatever they choose.
The F35 hater crowd screwed Canada.
SiddarPoor Russians getting hit with the standard leftwing antiwar tactics that Soviets cultivated so diligently in the West.
SiddarI have wondered about why guns come so late in development process for new planes not just F35.
I would speculate it has to do with fly by wire and dynamically unstable designs. Where you have to get the flight control systems fully complete before you can add the dynamic forces of the gun firing into the mix.
SiddarI thought only F15 and F22 had MDS used for threat identification. So export issues were limited to countries using F15. F35 is targeted as a F16 replacement so you have a much greater number of countries buying the plane as compared to the F15. Fairly clear you don’t want potential enemies to know how you identify there specific aircraft type. Heavy classification of this system seems almost mandatory.
Sign In
