F-35 Lightning II Discussion

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

what do quebec entrepreneurs have to do with the Gripen?

The manuals already come in French?

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

what do quebec entrepreneurs have to do with the Gripen?

Saab said it would be built in Quebec and NS.

And absolutely - trudeaus vip aircraft should be max8 purchased from air Canada

[Go4Long]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Saab said it would be built in Quebec and NS.

And absolutely - trudeaus vip aircraft should be max8 purchased from air Canada

I think Air Canada is keeping all their Maxes aren't they?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In case any of you are still paying attention.

Three competitors are left:

F-35 (likely to make the most sense);
Super Hornet (not good but not terrible);
Gripen (just lol. Only loved by internet fanbois and failing Quebec entrepreneurs).

Today the Feds are looking to fast track the VIP and Tanker fleet replacement.

Ottawa eyeing second-hand market to replace VIP and cargo fleet


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ott...anes-1.5850140



This is not the worst idea in the world. Help out struggling airlines by purchasing unused aircraft for military purposes, save money and get newer transports. Pick up a small fleet of A330s, send them to Spain for conversion and you have yourself a A330MRTT.

If anyone wants to make a bid: https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement...PW-20-00938667

I made the mistake of joining the BF4C group on Facebook, which is dominated by Gripen fanboys...I spend half my time over there pointing out that no, a gripen can't go Mach 2.4, and 4000km, and carry a weapons load.

Their answer for EVERY question is the Gripen will do it better because Saab says so, and they're still harping on the range thing, despite a Boeing rep admitting this week that even with the CFT's the Super Hornet's range is only "comparable" to an F-35.

I will say this, the offer put forth by Saab LOOKS like a good offer on its face in terms of the technology offsets being offered. But Saab doesn't own the 414, so there's nothing to transfer there. We'd essentially be transferred the technology from a jet that nobody wants to buy, since they were all offered the same offsets and turned it down with most of them specifically stating in the documents either released or leaked that the Saab substantially underperformed every other option in the competition (it's even been spanked in competitions by USED F-16's)...we'd spend millions (probably billions) bringing a production facility online where we could build an aircraft for two years of production before turning the lights off and firing everyone since they'll never sell another Gripen...now THAT sounds like a Liberal spending project.

[killramos]

Trudeau can buy his Max8 from Ethiopian airlines for all I care

[revelations]

This will sound weird, but I can see the case for a mixed order of say 5-10 Lightnings and the rest of the gap filled with the SH.

Its been reported the Lighting has some ultra wierd tech that cannot be found easily in the open (things like electro-optical cloaking, among other strange passive/active weapons, including network attack/EM directed attack) - so I think the government feels like its a major tool in the arsenal, but to be used sparingly only when needed. If the F35s have been doing OK in Alaska, then surely Northern Canada should suffice.

[Go4Long]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This will sound weird, but I can see the case for a mixed order of say 5-10 Lightnings and the rest of the gap filled with the SH.

Its been reported the Lighting has some ultra wierd tech that cannot be found easily in the open (things like electro-optical cloaking, among other strange passive/active weapons, including network attack/EM directed attack) - so I think the government feels like its a major tool in the arsenal, but to be used sparingly only when needed. If the F35s have been doing OK in Alaska, then surely Northern Canada should suffice.

I've sort of been harping on this on the facebook group as well, but we have to remember how long we took to get to a true RFP stage, and competition to begin with. It's not that I can't see the justification, but there's three problems with the idea:

1. Unlikely that the RCAF wants to submit to keeping stores for two types, they've basically said as much. They'll keep the legacy hornets going for JUST long enough to bring the replacement online whatever it might be;
2. The RFP is for 88 fighters, for price X, to be used from 2025 - 2060. We can't change the requirements by any significant measure now or we get stuck in court for changing the rules to suit one of the competitors; and
3. Trying to fly the super hornets until 2060 sounds like a really bad idea.

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think Air Canada is keeping all their Maxes aren't they?

No clue, pretty sure the market is pretty anti-max right now. But it would at least keep the $ in Canada, mini bailout and all

I don't get why the liberals are so waffling on the f35, shit the f18s we bought from Australia are a gong show needing radar upgrades before they can integrate.

Like FFS we could have had a squadron running by now - instead we're still trying to decide. And the options aren't any better than what we could already have had.

[Go4Long]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No clue, pretty sure the market is pretty anti-max right now. But it would at least keep the $ in Canada, mini bailout and all

I don't get why the liberals are so waffling on the f35, shit the f18s we bought from Australia are a gong show needing radar upgrades before they can integrate.

Like FFS we could have had a squadron running by now - instead we're still trying to decide. And the options aren't any better than what we could already have had.

Ryanair ordered 75 more maxes the day the grounding was lifted, and alaska ordered some more today.

The F-18's as a source for cannibalizations was an ok idea (but we over paid)...trying to bring them up to our spec and turn them in to flyers is stupid.

the funny part is that had they run a competition 10 years ago I honestly think the F-35 could have lost that. Now? No chance it loses, it's too dominant. Every competition has basically said that the performance is worth the additional cost per flight hour (which is still high, although it's coming down)

[jutes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No clue, pretty sure the market is pretty anti-max right now. But it would at least keep the $ in Canada, mini bailout and all

I don't get why the liberals are so waffling on the f35, shit the f18s we bought from Australia are a gong show needing radar upgrades before they can integrate.

Like FFS we could have had a squadron running by now - instead we're still trying to decide. And the options aren't any better than what we could already have had.

It’s not just the Liberals, Conservatives had 8 years as a majority to sign a contract. Military for Canadians isn’t a priority for spending, there is no national pride like in the US. The fucking Blue Angles will be flying the Super Hornet, an airshow performer having newer aircraft than our front line fighter FFS. Canadians don’t care about the state of the military until they are needed for snow removal and taking care of old people, that’s all they see a need for. Fighter jets, Navy boats and tanks are scary and people don’t want a military to be effective enough to kill people.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've sort of been harping on this on the facebook group as well, but we have to remember how long we took to get to a true RFP stage, and competition to begin with. It's not that I can't see the justification, but there's three problems with the idea:

1. Unlikely that the RCAF wants to submit to keeping stores for two types, they've basically said as much. They'll keep the legacy hornets going for JUST long enough to bring the replacement online whatever it might be;
2. The RFP is for 88 fighters, for price X, to be used from 2025 - 2060. We can't change the requirements by any significant measure now or we get stuck in court for changing the rules to suit one of the competitors; and
3. Trying to fly the super hornets until 2060 sounds like a really bad idea.

Come 2040, I dont see NATO birds flying around with crew waving at the russian bear crews anymore. Its going to be all UAV based - the F35 can manage/control/direct a herd of them autonomously and automatically. Force multiplier. The UAVs can loiter at FL40-60 for 24 hours in some cases - and then come down as needed.

The problem is the 20 year gap to getting the F35 ready to be really used like it was meant to be, the master of all things in the skies (except perhaps, close in air to air).

[Go4Long]

There's no appetite for offensive drones in this country. Super politically unpopular. and regardless of that, it goes back to the RFP. we have to act as though what the RFP says is exactly what we're going to do, in which case both the super hornet and the gripen look like phenomenally stupid entrants into the fight.

[dirtsniffer]

Is quebec entrepreneur an oxymoron?

[Go4Long]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

(except perhaps, close in air to air).

I don't know what you mean by that. The F-35 is dominant in the Air to Air game. There hasn't been a fighter this dominant since the F-15C started showing up and picking apart the 3rd gens. In exercises in the last 3 years it's WORST performance was 20:1 kill ratio. I've got articles kicking around that I can link to where they talk about it going up against F-22's and holding its own. They went to Northern Lightning a couple months ago and had a sortie with 30 adversaries including F-22's as red air and the F-35's didn't have a single loss.

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is quebec entrepreneur an oxymoron?

That just means federally/provincially funded "business" same as maritimes entrepreneur.

[Gman.45]

The Gripen, even the new model E/F, with the 414 engine, is still underpowered and has a crapier thrust to weight ratio than a Block 52 F16, and way crapier compared to a wide mouth intake F16. It does have a small harder to see profile, apparently has a quick turn around/sortie generation rate, but it's really not that much cheaper when it all breaks down in terms of cost. I was initially a Gripen fanboy admittedly, then some of the RL fighter pilots I know gave their opinions/info to me about it, which IMO are correct - F35 is the best option for Canada.

The Swiss evaluated the shit out of the Gripen and every other option, interesting results here. Also, if you do a search for "Fighter Pilot Podcast", as well as Aircrew Interview on Youtube, a Gripen pilot gives some good info about it, plus there are other vids from pilots who have flown against it in training/DAC, who give interesting opinions and info.

Superhornet - slow. The F16s operate with a typical combat loadout equal to a SuperHornet at many, many knots faster airspeed, and are capable of much more rapid acceleration and real world speed. This is important because in BVR at higher altitudes, you need to push well out past mach 1 (1.3 or 1.5 is optimal), to give the Aim120 missiles a lot more chance of hitting targets. This is a critical feature, and the Superhornets just don't have the speed that other options do for this.

F35 - when every single pilot who has flown it, says it's the plane they would take to war over every other (save the F22), that tells the story IMO. At Red Flag the F35s have gone on an absolute rampage vs red air/red ground in exercises, even the slower, fatter, far less onboard fuel B model the Marines/Brits use, has ripped it up at Red Flag.

Unless the USA was to offer us the current sixth gen flight test demonstrator they've been flying, the F35 is the best option by a large factor IMO.

Swiss Gripen evaluation.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't know what you mean by that. The F-35 is dominant in the Air to Air game. There hasn't been a fighter this dominant since the F-15C started showing up and picking apart the 3rd gens. In exercises in the last 3 years it's WORST performance was 20:1 kill ratio. I've got articles kicking around that I can link to where they talk about it going up against F-22's and holding its own. They went to Northern Lightning a couple months ago and had a sortie with 30 adversaries including F-22's as red air and the F-35's didn't have a single loss.

Im not talking BVR, im talking about a CLOSE IN knife fight in a phone booth. My information is not that up to date, but the last I heard the raptor can turn and burn way better close in.

Also, with regards to electro-optical cloaking, some of the physics involved is bizarre to our white world. Its not just bending EM, its about adjust the actual time in certain locations to create a literal EM 'hole' in space for an object to occupy.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10695?page=6

[Go4Long]

In close the T/W of the raptor combined with thrust vectoring make it very tough to top. I'll find the link when I get home about the systems edge of the F-35 being leveraged against the F-22.

@Gman.45 the gripen is only small in profile when its at airshows. Combat configuration involves a lot of bags.

Here's a D model with still less than half the fuel of an F-35.

https://flic.kr/p/28YWS8d

[revelations]

10 years ago the F35 made little sense but now with more of the true capabilities being hinted at, it makes a lot more sense. Does it make sense for Canada in a defensive role? Thats a different question

[Buster]

Who was it that said that Canada shouldn't be buying fighter planes anyway. I agree with that guy.

If Canada wants to monitor its sovereign landmass, UAVs are a much better option. The idea that Canadian fighter pilots would ever need to get in some big dogfight in a conventional war sense is pretty comical.

[ZenOps]

Yup, crazy landmass size and not only that, very few airbases actually at the edges. Couple that with the totally anemic range, and even less range when taking off in cold weather, no assisted takeoffs (like you would get on a nuclear aircraft carrier) Its plain retarded to actually use them for defensive defense of Canada. Never forget, these are basically flying bricks of nickel.

They are pretty much designed to be used as first strike carried on nuclear aircraft carriers that can move into close-ish proximity to their target. Great for starting a war, but not so great for ending one.

At this point in time, with the Huawei and Covid going on - even if Canada wanted to buy from China, I don't think China would be willing to sell anymore. Chance missed.

As for "going around the moon with the USA" Well, they better fix their landing rockets because if they make it around the moon only to die slowing down on approach to earth it would be horrible (SN8) A failure going around the moon in year 2035 would be a solid admission that the original never happened.