F-35 Lightning II Discussion

[Gman.45]

I don't get the B52 crack at all. Fighter to fighter though, many critics big argument about the F35 is that it doesn't "perform" as well, which simply isn't true, hence my comparison to the current F16 performance, which it easily outclasses.

I don't disagree about the $/capability ratio you're bringing up, and actually read what I've written, you would realize you're using the same arguments I have. I've said several times at the price for the F35, I would rather have Canada buy F22's, which will dominate every type you've listed off, with ease, and have done so in every exercise they've come up with.

I've been told by Jutes though that the F22 will be too hard to maintain and that even the USAF is having major issues with that, and not the oxygen system, but stuff that isn't in the news. Ok, fine. Then, I would gladly support a buy of the Rafale - it's twin engined, it's also been certified to fly off of the USN CVN's, so we could always do exchanges with the Americans with it as well. I also don't buy into the whole idea that Canada needs a "day 1" of the war type fighter with the ability to defeat threats like the S300 or even older systems, we need a fighter with range, survivability, and air to air performance and a good radar system.

The 2 plus 2 plus one theory. 2 operators, 2 engines, one big radar wouldn't go awry right now, but as Jutes always says, nobody is building anything new OTHER than the F35, and certainly no 2 2 1 fighters like the good old days.

There are a lot of good options out there I agree other than the F35 for OUR mission IMO. The Typhoon has newer a2g capability coming online finally with the new blocks being built now, but it lacks the naval variant that the Rafale could give us, but it has a bit better radar than the Rafale, something in our large airspace that wouldn't hurt. The F15 SE, the newer variant South Korea and Japan are looking at may not be a bad option either. We could also go the Australian route, buy a small order of F18e/f's, and wait and see how the F35 plays out in 10 years, which is exactly what they are doing. One thing that all the RCAF guys make clear is that something new is needed NOW.

[Go4Long]

It's not a dig at the b52 at all, the b52 is an incredible aircraft, the likes of which will likely never be built again. It was a dig at him for comparing apples to audis by saying the usaf had aircraft still in use that entered service in 1952...100% true statement, but there's a huge difference between expecting a 60+ year service life out of a heavy bomber as opposed to a fighter jet. Sorry for the confusing dig :-P

the corrosion problems of the f-22 have been well covered, and various other hiccups here and there, but you'd be surprised at how prone to mechanical failure fighters as a whole are. The three airshows that I regularly attend were all supposed to have the f-18 this year, it had mechanical issues for two of them.

And as I've said numerous times, I love the f-16. It's a cool plane that is incredibly capable... But it's not a plane that we could fly for the next 30 years.

[95EagleAWD]

I can't see Canada ever needing a naval variant of any fighter. We got rid of our aircraft carriers back in the 70's.

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
I can't see Canada ever needing a naval variant of any fighter. We got rid of our aircraft carriers back in the 70's.

agreed. no point.

To the super hornet argument, it made a lot more sense for australia to purchase them as a stop gap fighter as they already operate them.

It's a cool plane as well, but suffers from the same problem as the latest gen F-16 being that it's the final evolution of an old design.

Even the EF-18G with it's truly state of the art electronics package would be obsolete much sooner than one of the more modern choices simply because of the platform it's based on.

[Gman.45]

it was CarrieR, the Bonaventure was our last deck in service, and was alone at the time when it was retired.

To say you can't ever see us needed a CVN is pretty ridiculous. If you were to say we can't afford it, that's one thing, but to claim you know we'll not need one....it's like playing chess, and saying you'll never need the queen, so why have it.

Considering that compared to every other type of naval vessel ever to fight on the seas, a CV is the most capable and dangerous of all, and with today's aircraft, can threaten both sea and land targets like never before.

Even keeping sustained helicopter ops going is far easier and more efficient with a small assault ship than off of a frigate or destroyer, which is what we do now. Also, considering all the fanfare regarding protecting Canada's northern waters, not to mention being able to do any other mission, what would you suggest is superior to a carrier, even a stovl smaller deck? What I'm saying is if we get stuck with the F35 buy, being able to deploy them on a ship will give our forces a huge advantage compared to how they currently operate, as well as the capability to fight forces right now that we would have no hope of taking on without support from allies. Fighting against another CV equipped opponent without one yourself = pretty much the end of your navy. Saying "we'll never need that" isn't what those in the military planning offices are in the business of thinking, and an x JTF member who works for the same private military company as I who was previously on naval boarding teams is the person I trust the most so far as naval ops and theory goes, and his opinion which I completely agree with is any modern navy without a CV deck of some sort is just a frigate navy, capable of only supporting missions at best.

Also, I was using the Australian example with the SH's, not saying that buying that aircraft would be the best option. It is a compromise, less capable in close air combat than our current F18C, yet has a larger fuel fraction, MUCH better AESA radar, towed decoy system, better ECM and jammers, and more stations/pilons and loadout options. It would be a step forward for our air force, but a very small one, and a big step sideways as well. The Typhoon, F15SE, and Rafale are probably the best options in that order right now.

[95EagleAWD]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said we don't need a carrier. I said we don't need a naval variant of any aircraft because we don't have a carrier. The fact that Rafale's can operate off American CVNs is moot, since the US Navy would never actually allow that to happen for more than demonstration and testing purposes.

To me, from my knowledge and what I've read, the Typhoon seems to be Canada's answer. Not quite sure why buying a European aircraft seems to be such a bad thing.

[Gman.45]

You're right, not sure how I misread that twice. I do stand by the point and theory, we could never afford a full size 100k ton CV deck for a Rafale or other fighter, but a 25k ton ship or even smaller, we have, can, and should. The only trouble is it would HAVE to be the F35B, or the Harrier, as there are no other STOVL fighters that can run off a cheapy carrier deck. If we get stuck with the F35, I'm still saying a portion should be B models, and flown off such a ship, to make them worth it, as we'll be able to do SO much more with them that way.

Regarding the Rafale, the USN let the French operate the Rafales, a LOT off of their CVN's, I'm talking hundreds of traps and launches. A good friend of mine, Bob Banks, who retired a General in the RCAF, invented the Sting G suit among other things, used to be "Major" Banks when I was growing up, and sponsored my application to a few various military colleges in North America.

He did not one, but TWO tours with the US Navy flying their Hornets off of CV's, one with a Navy and one with a Marine VF fighter squadron, both as a flight surgeon to boot. So, it does happen that Canadians get to go on exchanges, and it'd be nice if we had a compatible aircraft to bring along so that both sides can learn SO much from one another, which the Rafale would give us just like the F35 would, should we not buy the F35. I do like the Typhoon as well, and another Canadian test pilot was largely responsible for much of its testing as well in fact, but I've only spoken briefly to him in person a couple of times. As stated, the radar capability is better with the Eurofighter, and it can carry more a2a armament than the Rafale as well, but isn't up to speed as much with a2g, but that's coming along well too. The Grippen is a great little fighter too, small, hard to see, very good in tight apparently, my friend Jason Paquin has flown it a ton at test pilot school in the UK, and says the only real drawback is, again, one engine and range/payload. Sortie rate wise it is easiest the cheapest of all modern western fighters to operate, by FAR, and even with just 1 motor, wouldn't be a horrible way for us to go, as we could in theory by 150 or more of them and still be well short of the F35 program cost. Well short. They are bar better suited to the cold as well, being used to operating at more Northern parallels.

[95EagleAWD]

There's no way we would operate our Rafale's off American decks with our pilots. There's no support on board a CVN for a French airplane, no maintenance personel, etc. I imagine the weapons would mate up just fine because I would think the Rafale uses a standard NATO weapons system bus for electronics and all that. I can see Canadian pilots flying American Hornets off American carriers for sure. Exchanges happen all the time.

The thing is compatability as well. Can Typhoons carry AMRAAMs? I don't know that. The RAF uses their own medium range missile, so we wouldn't want to make all of our AIM-120s obsolete by having an aircraft that can't fire them. The can use Sidewinders I'm pretty sure because the Germans and Italians use Sidewinders, and they can carry any LGB or JDAM weapon.

[Gman.45]

The Typhoon can carry the Aim120, it's systems are compatible with it and the British Meteor. It can carry both Aim9x or M as well as the Asraam.

You raise an interesting point regarding our weapons stockpiles. One example of this not working out I would use is our submarine fleet. It's now been proven and established by numerous places that the money we spent retrofitting the 4 subs to fire our stockpile of Mk48 ADCAP torpedoes was over twice as costly as taking the Spearfish torpedoes that were designed to be fired from the existing tubes, a torp that is faster and better than the ADCAP anyway. Yet, in order to protect our "investment", we ended up spending twice the money we would have spent buying equivalent numbers of Spearfish by changing out the tubes for compatibility with the MK48.

Now, obviously I realize that subs and aircraft are hugely different expense wise, and in this case it doesn't matter as the Typhoon will be able to use the Aim120's we have right now. There are much more capable variants coming online soon that we'll probably buy some of as well for whatever we end up flying too.

Also, the French have their own CVN and operate Rafales off of them as well, and when they did the certification for it off of the USN CVN they had crews on board as well that had to service and repair the Rafales that were operating off of them at the time, so it can be done, as it has been done.

I would still rather see us with the Typhoon over the Rafale anyway.

[jutes]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


Can you imagine trying to stage F-35s out of Yellowknife for Arctic defense?

http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_...9bb30f31a.html

"FAIRBANKS — The F-35 Lighting II is a flashy prize for whatever community is chosen to host it in the Pacific region....

...the Air Force has said it intends to put the next group of F-35s in the Asia Pacific region, which puts Eielson Air Force Base among a smaller group of U.S. basing candidates.

Eielson AFB to the North Pole is 2815km. CFB Cold Lake to NP is 3955km. Eielson is 1140km further north than Cold Lake is. Here's hoping that Eielson wins, it'd be funny to see how Canadian F-35 critics react. Probably something about the USAF risking the lives of its pilot in the Arctic.

[Go4Long]

Base them at Alert

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by jutes



http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_...9bb30f31a.html



Eielson AFB to the North Pole is 2815km. CFB Cold Lake to NP is 3955km. Eielson is 1140km further north than Cold Lake is. Here's hoping that Eielson wins, it'd be funny to see how Canadian F-35 critics react. Probably something about the USAF risking the lives of its pilot in the Arctic.

Eielson is an Air Force Base. Built for the Air Force. Climate controlled hangars, weapons bunkers etc.

Yellowknife airport is a small civilian airport. An F-35 wouldn't do nearly as well as a CF-18 or a Typhoon up there.

The F-22s based in Alaska are hangared all the time, because they can't be outside. This is pretty much true of all stealth aircraft, since their skin requires special care. The USAF had to build special hangars for their B-2s on Guam and Diego Garcia before they could deploy out there.

An F-35 can get cold. It flies at 45,000 feet. It GETS cold up there. The support facilities required in Canada, IMO, would doom a stealth airplane.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by Go4Long
Base them at Alert

Can't imagine any modern Western fighter flying off a gravel runway.

[Go4Long]

Hrmmmm.... PAVE ALERT.

Or the alternative, SUKHOIS FOR EVERYONE.

lol, the sad part is that I'm not sure which one of those ideas is more rediculous. Probably the Sukhois.

[jutes]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
[B]

Eielson is an Air Force Base. Built for the Air Force. Climate controlled hangars, weapons bunkers etc

Last time I checked, Cold lake has the same things. Aircraft don't sit outside all year round. If there is a chance of inclement weather, they get put inside.

Yellowknife airport is a small civilian airport. An F-35 wouldn't do nearly as well as a CF-18 or a Typhoon up there.

You are basing this on what?

The F-22s based in Alaska are hangared all the time, because they can't be outside.

They are hangared only when they aren't flown, which goes for every other modern fighter jet, including the CF-18. There is nothing special about the F-35 that makes it any worse in cold weather. All fighters are susceptible to the same problems in cold weather conditions. Also, the F-35's skin is a lot tougher than the Raptors and B2's, they've had 20 years to improve on the Raptor.

An F-35 can get cold. It flies at 45,000 feet. It GETS cold up there. The support facilities required in Canada, IMO, would doom a stealth airplane.

I don't know what this means. F-35's can't fly in cold weather even though its cold anywhere above 10k feet?

[pheoxs]

Bumping this thread instead of starting a new one.

Liberals cancel purchasing F-35s and launch replacement program to open bidding for other options.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/145...m#.Vkl2WvmrSHs

The Canadian government has ordered an “open and transparent competition to replace the CH-18 fighter aircraft focusing on options that match Canada's defence needs.”

According to the text of a mandate letter from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to his defence minister Harjit Sajjan on Friday made public in the Canadian media, the latter has been asked to work with the minister of public services and procurement to go through with the bidding process.

This means Canada has officially scrapped the procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters and instead could send out bidding requests to several manufacturers (perhaps including Lockheed Martin).

France has already offered its Rafale aircraft for the Canadian fighter replacement program soon after it became known that the new government in Ottawa was looking for a cheaper alternative to the F-35. Others in the reckoning could be Boeing’s F/A-18 which could stand at an advantage as the existing Canadian CF-18 fighter aircraft were procured from the erstwhile McDonnell Douglas which has since merged with Boeing.

Canada had joined the F-35 stealth fighter program in 1997 to buy 65 aircraft for Can$44.8 billion ($33.6 billion) besides investing US$ 150 million in the program. Canadian companies are included in the parts and equipment eco-system of the F-35 which means they get to supply to other operators of the F-35.

However, what appears to have tilted the balance against the F-35 is the high upfront and life cycle costs besides the delay in developing the aircraft and the expensive fixing of recurring technical issues.

[HiTempguy1]

Awesome, glad they are redoing the same thing that has already been done, what, two times over the past decade?

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Awesome, glad they are redoing the same thing that has already been done, what, two times over the past decade?

Just wait for 2019, when the PC's get back in, and cancel whatever the Liberals order, to opt for the F-35's again

[Go4Long]

If the process includes the F-35 and they choose something else, I'm ok with it I guess, as long as it's not the Superhornet...yeah, let's spend a lot of money to buy a 40 year old design that they're only going to offer support on for the next 10 years.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Go4Long
If the process includes the F-35 and they choose something else, I'm ok with it I guess, as long as it's not the Superhornet...yeah, let's spend a lot of money to buy a 40 year old design that they're only going to offer support on for the next 10 years.

Whatever it is, I'm sure Bombardier will have their hands in our pockets for it.