pfcemI place myself in the PM seat (or Defence Minister or whoever runs the gob in Canuck parlance) and I say to myself, “self, why do we need this F-35 when others will suffice?”
Because as Prime Minister or Defense Minister you SHOULD understand that while “others will suffice” TODAY, 20 years from now COULD be quite different.
I like the F-35 perfectly well, but, in a nation like Canada who is looking to upgrade its air fleet and do so as economically as possible while still measurably upgrading its abilities why isn’t the SH a serious contender.
Because the COST-EFFECTIVENESS of the F-35A is better.
75 Super Hornets would be cheaper than 75 F-35s and still provide more than the A/B Hornets it operates now. Canada is very unlikely to go to war with a major power in the conceivable near term…………and don’t reply with “Russia.” The SH can do more than the original Hornet can do and Canada isn’t facing any more serious situations now than it did when it selected the F-18 in 1982.
No, 75 Super Hornets would not be cheaper than 75 F-35s. And if you are so convinced that Canada is very unlikely to go to war with a major power in the conceivable near term, what do you even need the Super Hornet for? Of course you SHOULD be concerned with things BEYOND the near term…
Buy 75 SH’s, save the extra $10-15 million per aircraft you’d spend on the F-35, and spend it on Aurora replacements or ships or radars whatever and you’re still ahead in the end.
You aren’t going to save $10-15 million per aircraft buying Super Hornets vs F-35A. If you want to be ‘cheap’ buy 50 F-35A & 50 of something else (not saying I know what that would be but should not cost more than ~$30 milliion each).
pfcemIf expeditionary warfare is one of our future goals, why only 5 KC-30A’s and 4 C-17s?? I’ve been told we are receiving 2 more C-17s, but are there options open for extra KC-30A’s?
In expeditionary warfare, Australian tankers would likely be operating US Abrams along side US forces, leaving their own in Australia…
That is of course unless Australia was conducting expeditionary warfare without the full support of the US.
pfcemTry some like ~50% is eaten up for the drag and weight of external fuel tanks…………:eek:
Actually 50% is more a BALLPARK “rule of thumb”. And note that Schorsch’s numbers add up to 40%, not TOO far from the “quck & dirty estimate” of 50%.
Of couse in reality MANY factors come into play that can alter the actual % somewhat. If you are actually trying to do an ‘accurate’ estimate/calculation chances are you don’t have enough information to be as accurate as you would like.
pfcemBut soon the Eurocanards will both enjoy extensive updates to their range…
I wonder why they are going with CFTs instead of more/bigger drop tanks…:D
And why do they need to carry more fuel in the 1st place…;)
Sorry, I just could not resist.
pfcemThe official web doesn’t mention what kind of the two external fuel tanks (1,000 L or 1,500 L) are used by Eurofighter for the ferry range of 3,704 km………
Since it is said that eurofighter could reach the ferry range of 2,600 km with 4,996 kg internal fuel. I think it should be more reasonable for Eurofighter to reach the ferry range of 3,706 km (42.5% more than 2,600 km) with 3,000 L (1,500 L fuel tank*2 or 1,000 L fuel tank*3) external fuel (4,996 + 3,000*0.8 = 7,396 kg, which is 48% more than 4,996 kg) instead of with 2,000 L (1,000 L fuel tank*2) external fuel (4,996 + 2,000*0.8 = 6,596 kg, which is 32% more than 4,996 kg).
Sorry but there is no way 48% additional fuel carried externally is going to result in 42.5% increase in range. ESPECIALLY not in a ferry misison where the tanks are carried during the entire flight…
BALLPARK figure 50% additional fuel carried externally resulting in ~1/3 increase in range. More if the tanks are droped as soon as they are empty.
pfcemAt least in the case of the MiG-29 OPIT’s point about optimum usage of internal volume does apply: the original Fulcrum was atrociously inefficient in this regard. The rather impressive gain in some ways says more about the older airframe than it does about the improvements achieved.
That is why I compared the Mig-29M to the Mig-29C rather than the Mig-29A….
pfcemFirst Schorsch I wish to apologize to you for breaking up your post as I am about to do. It is not a response specifically to your post but more clearification of some things & people can easily enough see your post in its entirety for context.
See it this way: most fighters are designed for air combat. That is the whole aerodynamics are designed to meet ambitious combat performance targets.
This includes FIGHTERS like the F-35…
The usage of a drop tank means a less efficient cruise…
EXACTLY!
On the other hand, when I go into combat, the dropped tank allows me design a smaller more powerful fighter. That’s the whole point.
Smaller fighters tend to be LESS powerful fighters….
If being small made for the ‘best’ fighter, the F-15, Su-27 & F-22 would never have existed & fighters like the Mig-21 & F-5 would be dominating the world.
Using an F-16C to haul two 2000lbs 400nm (the F-35A primary mission) is gross misuse of the airframe, but is done due to other considerations.
600nm
And in addition to being every bit as good (better in fact) a fighter as the F-16, the F-35 being designed with the above mission in mind is MUCH better at that misison as well.
If General Dynamics was given the specifications of building a bomber they wouldn’t have come around with the YF-16.
Same for the F-35. 🙂
You can make most fighters to fairly effective bombers (as the F-16), but you cannot make bombers to fighters.
Exactly the reason dedicated strike/attack aircraft have gone out of style. AND why the F-35 is a strike FIGHTER rather than a dedicated strike/attack aircraft.
If we look at a modern TF-equipped fighter, about 20% of the external fuel is eaten up by aerodynamic drag, while another 20% is due to additional lift induced drag (due to weight).
And if said fighter were capable of carrying said fuel internally the aerodynamic drag would be significantly less.
Also keep in mind that if a fighter burns 5,000 lbs of fuel it is 5,000 lbs lighter reguardless of whether that 5,000 lbs of fuel was carried internally of externally. Although 5,000 lbs of internal fuel is not required to fly the same distance/time as 5,000 lbs of external fuel…
pfcemHow convenient ! I think I should assume the name “F/A-18” just happens to look somewhat similar too, don’t I ?
Do I REALLY have to explain the entire history of the F/A-18E/F to you?
You said it : nearly identical. The airframe has not been enlarged, yet the thing requires a more powerful engine to cope with added weight.
Last I checked the more powerful engine is to improve performance, particularly when carring ‘heavy’ (heavy being relative to the Gripen) loads not ‘cope’ with the measly 4.5% weight increase. You don’t need 20+% more thrust to ‘cope’ with <5% additional weight…
And of course the POINT being, thru real-world examples rather than some made up BS, that increasing internal fuel capacity DOES NOT require significantly greater size &/or weight.
So, again QUITE TO THE CONTRARY of the claims of you & others…
Compared to the earlier Gripen C, the Gripen NG increased internal fuel capacity by ~40% [~910kg (~2,000 lbs) ~300 US gal] & INCREASED performance (particularly when carrying ‘heavy’ loads yet DID NOT grow in size & only gained ~4.5% [~300kg (~660 lbs)] in weight of which not all was due to the increased fuel capacity.
Compared to the earlier Mig-29C, the Mig-29M increased internal fuel capacity by ~45% [~1620kg (~3,570 lbs) ~530 US gal] & INCREASED performance (particularly when carrying ‘heavy’ loads yet DID NOT grow in size & only gained ~3.5% [~400kg (~880 lbs)] in weight of which not all was due to the increased fuel capacity. Would you prefer me to compare the Mig-29M to the Mig-29A…
pfcemF-22 is clearly superior in speed, some ~27% faster as long as Gripen dont cheat and AB, and while others don’t agree, (when F-35 is mentioned, but not when F-22 is mentioned, i mite add. Odd don’t you think ?) i think that is a very clear advantage.
I don’t know what kind of “fuzzy math” you are using to claim that the F-22 is only ~27% faster than the Gripen NG.
OTOH All data at hand says Gripen NG has 41% higher persistent max supercruise, of course that can be more or less negated if F-22 stay at M 1.2-1.3, but then again they have same speed and so they are once more on pair in every aspect beside cost, MTBF, availability, sortie rate, etc.
No it does not. On internal fuel, the F-22 can fly FARTHER/LONGER than the Gripen NG at what ever speed you choose to judge them at. Comparing them at DRAMITICALLY different speeds (&/or altitudes ;)) is disingenuous at best.
On range, F-22 is unsurprisingly paying a hefty price for that extra thrust/speed, extra weight and extra drag, in part due to stealth requirements.
LOL
pfcemSo the question is… is the later block F16 version still better than the SH in terms of kinetics, and is the F16 blk 60 capable of competing with a SH in terms of systems?
Given that the F/A-18E/F did not improve on the kinetics of earlier F/A-18s but the later block F-16s HAVE improved on the kinetics of earlier F-16s which already had a kinetics advantage…
In terms of systems, slight/moderate advantage to the F/A-18E/F.
The RCS of later block F-16s is ~1.2 sq m.
The RCS of the F/A-18E/F is ~0.1 sq m.
Thus a given radar would detect a later block F-16 at ~twice the range it would detect a F/A-18E/F.
The RCS of the Typhoon & Rafale are comparable to the F/A-18E/F. Estimates/claims vary from ~0.5 sq m to ~0.1 sq m (even 0.05 sq m).
OF COARSE THESE RCSs ARE FOR CLEAN AIRFRAMES & ONLY SIGNIFICANT FOR MORE-OR-LESS HEAD ON. Loaded with external stores or facing another direction & the differences between RCS become significantly less.
pfcemI’ve yet to find a single aircraft that exhibits this behavior. Once enlarged to carry more fuel, they tend to be much heavier. F/A-18 E/F and Gripen NG show it all.
Quite the opposite.
The increased size of the F/A-18E/F is due to MUCH more than just increased fuel capacity. In fact the F/A-18E/F is very much an all-new aircraft that just happens to look somewhat like a F/A-18C/D.
The Gripen NG is nearly identical to the Gripen C but for being ONLY ~300kg (~660 lbs) [~4.5%] heavier (and like the F/A-18E/F that weight is not all due to increased fuel capacity) has an internal fuel capacity ~910kg (~2,000 lbs) [~40%] greater.
The Mig-29M is nearly identical to the Mig-29C but for being ONLY ~400kg (~880 lbs) [~3.5%] heavier (and like the F/A-18E/F & Gripen NG that weight is not all due to increased fuel capacity) has an internal fuel capacity ~1620kg (~3,570 lbs) [~45%] greater.
pfcemTalk about magic..
As discussed in previous threads, if the F-35 is indeed capable of what the claims say, then what’s the use of F-22, at all? Having a specialized air superiority aircraft only marginally better in its very own role than a striker, this all at 2-2.5x the cost, that is a real waste.
The F-22 isn’t a marinally better air-superiority aircraft, it is a significantly better air-superiority aircraft. There is PLENTY of gap between the F-22 & everything else for the F-35 to match or exceed most everything else without being quite as good as the F-22.
Like the F-15/F-16 combo, the F-22 is the dedicated “clear any & all opposition from the sky” air-superiority fighter & the F-35 a lower cost fighter that while less capable as an air-superiority fighter is still quite capable of holding its own vs most (if not all) adversaries. The difference however is that while the F-15/F-16 combo were designed to defeat then current generation threats (& when the next generation Mig-29 & Su-27 came about they lost much of their advantage) the F-22/F-35 combo were designed with the next generation threat in mind rather than just the current threat.
Note however that I am capable of giving the Russians the credit they are due. I believe it possible that their 5th generation fighter could be a match (superior in some ways, perhaps not in others) for the F-35 but that it is highly unlikely they will be able to match the F-22 for quite some time to come.
pfcemHowever, you don’t have to be a fan of Carlo ‘End of The World’ Kopp to realise F-35’s AA qualities are, let’s say, questionable.
Questionable? How exactly?
pfcemJust as a sidenote: the Pz 87 is a Swiss Leo 2 A4 Batch 5, definately no A5 standard.
Australia evaluated the upgraded Pz 87WE, not the ‘basic’ Pz 87…
No A5 standard, superior in a number of ways.
pfcemExactly. See a Formula 1 race about that, when related to condition the number of tank-stops are figured out by experts. Not the same exactly, but the lighter car has a performance advantage, when it comes to weight.
Don’t see too many race cars carrying external fuel tanks…
They carry as much fuel as they are allowed to INTERNALLY. 🙂
Sign In
