F-35 Lightning II Discussion

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by dimi
What is so special about an F35. Most specs seem to favor the F22 over F35 on wiki. Wikipedia says the 2012-13 planes will be $200-300M each. I don't even know who the hell they are intending to use these against.

The F22 is designed with air superiority in mind, not to mention, it's banned from being exported, even to close allies of the US.

The F35 is designed to be a multirole aircraft, similar to what our CF-18s can do. You can't really build an air force solely from F22s.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by AndyL
But it wasn't the conservatives who originally signed the deal on the F35s... Mr Cretin himself did...

Originally posted by CapnCrunch


Most people are too fucking stupid to even comprehend this.

And others are too fucking stupid to comprehend that signing a deal to be a partner in development and signing a purchasing agreement at the end of that development are two entirely different things.

One brought jobs to Canada as well as a greater access to info on a plane meant to replace the fleet for a certain cost, the other bought the planes at a much higher cost while trying to disguise the real number ("government furnished equipment").

[tentacles]

Originally posted by Phenix
Hence why the Euro fighter would be perfect

But the Eurofighter costs more than the F-35.

Economies of scale. They are never going to make more than probably 1,000 Eurofighters, there are less than 600 in service right now. The US alone is going to get 1,500 F-35s and the total will be well over 2,000.

[RecoilS14]

[Xtrema]

Just wait for affordable Chinese knock offs

[jutes]

For a future "high end" air war against a sophisticated and well trained threat, there is no substitute for the B-2, F-22, F-35 class of aircraft. That's the real advantage F-35 will have; its package of avionics, low observability, sensors, and raw airframe performance will make any existing 4th and "4th+" generation fighter and their upgrades obsolescent. The legacy F-15, F-16, and F-18 fleet is rapidly reaching the end of its collective airframe life.

[ZenOps]

The F-22's are finished, but they are grounded as of two weeks ago.

No, noone gets the superior F-22's, not even Canada.

http://www.dailytech.com/USAF+is+Loo...ticle21580.htm

OBOGS system is failing at high altitude. Both the F-22 and F-35 use the same OBOGS. Rumor has it that they lost a F-22 due to pilot unconsciousness (but survived due to automated eject) But thats only if you want to believe the rumormill.

If they really want to put in a safety system, they should have an autopilot kick in if the human pilot blacks out. On the test planes, I believe they do have the ability to remote operate the plane in case of pilot error.... Which just begs the question, do you really need an onboard pilot at all? You can't do Mach 5+ turns with a human in the cockpit.

You could save a good tonne in weight as the pilot and all the support systems needed for keeping a person alive could be taken out... No large and "glass jaw" window needed either. Heck, you could technically use a concussion weapon and take out a fleet of airplanes by shattering the weakest point - the windows.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by ZenOps

Heck, you could technically use a concussion weapon and take out a fleet of airplanes by shattering the weakest point - the windows.

The only thing big enough to generate that kind of force is something like a nuke. At that point, I don't think the pilots are going to be worried about the cockpit glass shattering.

[jutes]

Originally posted by ZenOps

With new technologies you'll always have issues.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by codetrap


The only thing big enough to generate that kind of force is something like a nuke. At that point, I don't think the pilots are going to be worried about the cockpit glass shattering.

Focused weaponry has made a lot of progress. They can now burst the energy output of the sun in less a microsecond at any frequency they want.

Which can blast right through solid concrete, and knock a can off a table - without putting a hole in the concrete. A lucky EMP blast could melt the electronics. Mind you a lucky hit with a good old fashioned WWII flak would probably shatter the canopy just as easily.

Without doubt though, the weakest link of the plane is the pilot. If avionics reaches mach 20 (like missles) it will be physically impossible to have manned aircraft.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Which just begs the question, do you really need an onboard pilot at all? You can't do Mach 5+ turns with a human in the cockpit.

I wonder about your grasp on science.

What matters isn't speed, but acceleration, and in turns, the rate of turn, to take a turn at a higher speed have a slower rate of turn to compensate.

This is what you're talking about for the energy burst.
http://spacejibe.wordpress.com/2011/...of-space-time/

Yeah, that's for discovering new particles, not taking out the glass on a jet fighter.

The biggest thing you seem to be forgetting while mentioning insane ideas for knocking these jets out is that they're stealth fighters.

Doing a ground mission enemies shouldn't know where they are, and if it's an F-22 it's likely for air to air, and that EMP would take out your own fighters.
Maybe I'm missing something though, what is this focused weaponry you're talking about?

[dirtsniffer]

i dont understand why f-22s keep coming into mention. is it just for comparison? 'cause america wont sell thesse jets to anyone...

[Gman.45]

The USA won't sell the F22 to anyone as of RIGHT NOW. This could change, as the Japanese has been pressuring the USAF/USA to allow them to procure them, and if Canada began asking for them, the ban on sale to allies could rapidly change.

The run of F22's stopped at less than 200 when close to 1000 were originally planned, and this hurt the defense sector in the USA as well as screwed the USAF's force structure. It would be Win/Win IMO if they could re open the production lines and sell another several hundred F22's to Japan, Canada, and a few other allies.

The F22 is so superior to the F35 in nearly every way except cost, and that gap is rapidly closing.

Canada NEEDS a twin engine longer range interceptor as well as a tactical fighter, and despite what a few have said here the F22 can fit the role of tactical fighter very well. In fact, in Full stealth configuration it can carry 2 2000 lb JDAMS and 2 air to air missiles internally. That's pretty much the same loadout as the F35 in a Tac configuration. Yet the F22 still retains all of its air to air capability, an arena where the F35 is likely outmatched already by some of our potential threats out there.

A good friend of mine I went to high school with Capt Jason Paquin will be Canada's test pilot for whatever we decide to buy, and I've talked at great length with him about fighter procurement. BTW he's flown the Rafale, the Eurofighter, the Grippen, 1000+ hours in the F18, as well as about 30 other types (British test pilot school), and based on what he knows, the legacy Hornets we currently have are likely as capable air to air as the F35 at visual range, they only lack the AESA radar and frontal stealth aspect bonus the F35 have.

For the role required for the RCAF, the F22 is really the only single airframe solution out there, otherwise I think that we need two fighters, an interceptor for NORAD type missions, and a tactical fighter for supporting our ground forces. We can also go the "screw stealth as the USA will likely have pounded any air defenses in areas we will operate" and buy something cheaper for both roles like the F15 Silent Eagle, or the F16 Block 60ish Desert Falcons that the UAE and other Arabs got. It's been described as a low cost alternative/variant of the F35, and would give us commonality with current systems and refueling a/c of most of our allies.


edit: Also, Stealth was created mainly to penetrate the Soviet integrated air defense network in eastern Europe. If we take Libya for an example, in the space of 30 minutes, the US Navy floated one of its 4 spanky new SSGN Guided Missile Subs to 100 feet, hovered for 20 minutes, and launched 175 Tomahawk missiles at the various mainly stationary Libyan air defense sites. In 30 minutes the requirement for a stealth penatrator was largely destroyed. The results show it, with no allied a/c shot down to date.

It would take at LEAST three hundred sorties from tactical fighters, tankers, AWACS/AEW, and SEAD/DEAD fighters to achieve this.

As Canada's role is mainly support, is stealth a necessary requirement for our fighters? Our potential enemies are impossible to predict. It would be nice to have the f35 yes, but do you take 65 stealthy marginally effective fighters or say 150 non stealthy fighters with a good AESA radar, the capability to carry 10 or more advanced AA missilesk, and good decoy/ESM systems. Tough call.



Below is a pic from May 21, the first time the F35 has been seen at a public event, being escorted by a USN F/18. This is the F35C, the Naval variant, and the largest of the 3 F35 types, yet has no internal cannon armament (gay). I was surprised at its sized when next to an F18.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by Hakkola


I wonder about your grasp on science.

What matters isn't speed, but acceleration, and in turns, the rate of turn, to take a turn at a higher speed have a slower rate of turn to compensate.

This is what you're talking about for the energy burst.
http://spacejibe.wordpress.com/2011/...of-space-time/

Yeah, that's for discovering new particles, not taking out the glass on a jet fighter.

The biggest thing you seem to be forgetting while mentioning insane ideas for knocking these jets out is that they're stealth fighters.

Doing a ground mission enemies shouldn't know where they are, and if it's an F-22 it's likely for air to air, and that EMP would take out your own fighters.
Maybe I'm missing something though, what is this focused weaponry you're talking about?

Radio Frequency Stealth means absolutely nothing when you can see the infrared exhaust of a plane at 60,000 feet. Which is surprisingly easy because there is nothing else at that altitude that is not already at about - degree celsius. None of the current fighters can hide their exhaust.

There is also a variant, where the airspace around a "protected" zone is sprayed with a thin layer of tracer (usually deployed in ground based AA flak explosions) where any jet that passes through it will create a visible exhaust. You cannot change the laws of combustion, and if you have a material that turns bright red when you burn it at high temperature - you *will* see the chemtrail.

Focused weaponry is similar to Bush's "Star wars" where you shoot down missles and/or planes with focused bursts of radiation (like gamma rays) Its actually exceptionally easy to irradiate any human lifeform inside an airplane in about two seconds with focused gamma bursts, as the plane itself is rarely armored compared to say - a ground based lead shielded tank. The glass windows are exceptionally vulnerable to radiation.

Star wars didn't work for shooting down missles, becuase the missles were flying at Mach 15+. A mach 2 plane is much easier to target, and requires much less radiation to incapacitate the human pilot, compared to having enough radiation to pierce and or destroy the armored shell of a missle.

One ground based focused radiation emitter alongside an effective satellite infrared upper atmosphere detector could probably take out a fleet of F-22's and F-35's - In theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...EW.29_programs

[revelations]

Originally posted by Gman.45
The USA won't sell the F22 to anyone as of RIGHT NOW. This could change, as the Japanese has been pressuring the USAF/USA to allow them to procure them, and if Canada began asking for them, the ban on sale to allies could rapidly change.

The run of F22's stopped at less than 200 when close to 1000 were originally planned, and this hurt the defense sector in the USA as well as screwed the USAF's force structure. It would be Win/Win IMO if they could re open the production lines and sell another several hundred F22's to Japan, Canada, and a few other allies.

The F22 is so superior to the F35 in nearly every way except cost, and that gap is rapidly closing.

Canada NEEDS a twin engine longer range interceptor as well as a tactical fighter, and despite what a few have said here the F22 can fit the role of tactical fighter very well. In fact, in Full stealth configuration it can carry 2 2000 lb JDAMS and 2 air to air missiles internally. That's pretty much the same loadout as the F35 in a Tac configuration. Yet the F22 still retains all of its air to air capability, an arena where the F35 is likely outmatched already by some of our potential threats out there.

A good friend of mine I went to high school with Capt Jason Paquin will be Canada's test pilot for whatever we decide to buy, and I've talked at great length with him about fighter procurement. BTW he's flown the Rafale, the Eurofighter, the Grippen, 1000+ hours in the F18, as well as about 30 other types (British test pilot school), and based on what he knows, the legacy Hornets we currently have are likely as capable air to air as the F35 at visual range, they only lack the AESA radar and frontal stealth aspect bonus the F35 have.

For the role required for the RCAF, the F22 is really the only single airframe solution out there, otherwise I think that we need two fighters, an interceptor for NORAD type missions, and a tactical fighter for supporting our ground forces. We can also go the "screw stealth as the USA will likely have pounded any air defenses in areas we will operate" and buy something cheaper for both roles like the F15 Silent Eagle, or the F16 Block 60ish Desert Falcons that the UAE and other Arabs got. It's been described as a low cost alternative/variant of the F35, and would give us commonality with current systems and refueling a/c of most of our allies.


edit: Also, Stealth was created mainly to penetrate the Soviet integrated air defense network in eastern Europe. If we take Libya for an example, in the space of 30 minutes, the US Navy floated one of its 4 spanky new SSGN Guided Missile Subs to 100 feet, hovered for 20 minutes, and launched 175 Tomahawk missiles at the various mainly stationary Libyan air defense sites. In 30 minutes the requirement for a stealth penatrator was largely destroyed. The results show it, with no allied a/c shot down to date.

It would take at LEAST three hundred sorties from tactical fighters, tankers, AWACS/AEW, and SEAD/DEAD fighters to achieve this.

As Canada's role is mainly support, is stealth a necessary requirement for our fighters? Our potential enemies are impossible to predict. It would be nice to have the f35 yes, but do you take 65 stealthy marginally effective fighters or say 150 non stealthy fighters with a good AESA radar, the capability to carry 10 or more advanced AA missilesk, and good decoy/ESM systems. Tough call.



Below is a pic from May 21, the first time the F35 has been seen at a public event, being escorted by a USN F/18. This is the F35C, the Naval variant, and the largest of the 3 F35 types, yet has no internal cannon armament (gay). I was surprised at its sized when next to an F18.

Does your friend know why the RCAF didnt even bother to consider the super Hornet or the Silent Eagle?

[jutes]

Originally posted by revelations


Does your friend know why the RCAF didnt even bother to consider the super Hornet or the Silent Eagle?

Probably because it'd be a waste of time and money. The Super Hornet is old and not much better than what we have now. The Silent Eagle looks cool if you are flying it on a Combat Sim, but doesn't exist in the real world. There is what, one flying semi-prototype? No one else seems interested in that abortion so why should Canada throw even more money into flying a fleet of SE that no one else has or wants? Doesn't make any sense.

The F35 will be bought by many Air Forces while the Silent Eagle won't even make it into production.

[Gman.45]

Mainly because the deal for the JSF was singed long before the Silent Eagle was around, and the RCAF's viewpoint on the F18 E/F is that the legacy hornets we currently have outperform them in most areas of the flight envelope. The SuperHornet does have a bit of increased range, more weapons stations, a AESA radar capability, as well as other advantages but somebody sold the powers that be the idea that it wasn't much of an improvement over what he currently fly, and that a Superhornet fleet would be obsolete by the time we got it fielded.

[hampstor]

I found some good readings on F-35 / F-22 / F-18 / PAK-FA comparisons here: http://www.ausairpower.net

The Australians are also acquiring F-35's and iirc, several comparisons have been made between the RAAF's and Canada's needs.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by hampstor
I found some good readings on F-35 / F-22 / F-18 / PAK-FA comparisons here: http://www.ausairpower.net

The Australians are also acquiring F-35's and iirc, several comparisons have been made between the RAAF's and Canada's needs.

That's a pretty awesome site

[jutes]

Originally posted by hampstor
I found some good readings on F-35 / F-22 / F-18 / PAK-FA comparisons here: http://www.ausairpower.net

The Australians are also acquiring F-35's and iirc, several comparisons have been made between the RAAF's and Canada's needs.

According to them, nothing can out-match the Russian fighters except the almighty F22. Give me a break. There is a lot of good info in there but it is very bias towards one airframe.