Canada seeking to replace CF-18 fighter fleet

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If the F-35 worked properly and came in on budget to me it would be the only choice available.

Being a major military procurement only one of these can be true (however it is possible for both to be false).

[Rudee]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Read in the news the other day that the government may not pick the much maligned F-35 after all.

That's been the story for years now. Nothing new.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Rudee

That's been the story for years now. Nothing new.

Wrong. Up until very recently there had been no admission from the Feds that they were looking at anything other than the F-35.

[speede5]

The F-22 is not even worth discussing, Capt Crunch knows what he's talking about.

Euro will have it's own issues, the Hawk is a bit of a logistics nightmare, I can't imagine the Euro. BAE is brutally expensive, entry into the market is the easy part, after sales support will kill you.

Anything but the F-35 is just saving face right now. The F-35, as advertised is the right jet for Canada. DND knows it, the fighter community knows it, but it's a disaster. If we go with 4th gen fighters we will be changing our role in world affairs, no question.

The optics suck, we're over a barrel, and I don't think staying in for the long haul is gonna be easy, but the options just suck.

And seriously, 2 engines is a red herring. The gains of having a single, modern, reliable jet engine far outweigh the risks. DND has made the case for and accepted a singe engine. Let it go people.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by speede5

The F-22 is not even worth discussing, Capt Crunch knows what he's talking about.

Euro will have it's own issues, the Hawk is a bit of a logistics nightmare, I can't imagine the Euro. BAE is brutally expensive, entry into the market is the easy part, after sales support will kill you.

Anything but the F-35 is just saving face right now. The F-35, as advertised is the right jet for Canada. DND knows it, the fighter community knows it, but it's a disaster. If we go with 4th gen fighters we will be changing our role in world affairs, no question.

The optics suck, we're over a barrel, and I don't think staying in for the long haul is gonna be easy, but the options just suck.

And seriously, 2 engines is a red herring. The gains of having a single, modern, reliable jet engine far outweigh the risks. DND has made the case for and accepted a singe engine. Let it go people.

The Hawk is a trainer aircraft on loan to the CF, not sure where you're going there...

What issues will the Eurofighter have? It's already flying and seen combat. The F-35 is a flying lemon that has had setback after setback, cost the conservativs big political points and ran way over budget. Besides, even if we were to get the F-35 it's not like 65 jets would make a big difference anyway. The comms system doesn't work in the arctic and it loses stealth as soon as it carries an external weapon or fuel pod.

Canada doesn't need to be doing stealth first strike missions anyway. Leave that to the US, we need some aircraft for the same tasks as Libya and Bosnia. We also need them for sovereignty patrols. Get a cheaper aircraft and get more of them.

[jeffman]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

What issues will the Eurofighter have? It's already flying and seen combat. The F-35 is a flying lemon that has had setback after setback, cost the conservativs big political points and ran way over budget. Besides, even if we were to get the F-35 it's not like 65 jets would make a big difference anyway. The comms system doesn't work in the arctic and it loses stealth as soon as it carries an external weapon or fuel pod.

.

With the Pak fa, J 31,F3,AMCA and KFX coming in, half the world will have stealth fighters in the 2020's, It might be handy to have a stealth fighter as well

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The Hawk is a trainer aircraft on loan to the CF, not sure where you're going there...

What issues will the Eurofighter have? It's already flying and seen combat. The F-35 is a flying lemon that has had setback after setback, cost the conservativs big political points and ran way over budget. Besides, even if we were to get the F-35 it's not like 65 jets would make a big difference anyway. The comms system doesn't work in the arctic and it loses stealth as soon as it carries an external weapon or fuel pod.

Canada doesn't need to be doing stealth first strike missions anyway. Leave that to the US, we need some aircraft for the same tasks as Libya and Bosnia. We also need them for sovereignty patrols. Get a cheaper aircraft and get more of them.

It doesn't lose stealth with an external weapons loadout, its radar signature increases but still shows up as an object the size of a bird.

Most radar systems will filter small objects out, to get an even better effect you throttle back your speed on low altitude runs.

Stealth is a pure force multiplier, it allows you to sneak in, punch your enemy in the mouth first and sneak back out. This is especially true in a missile environment when your firing from a long distance.

Stealth gives you the initiative and most of the airforces in the world are pushing for stealth platforms because frankly you need less of them.

The communication issue is a bit of a red herring as the software is expected to be completed by the time the jets were set to be delivered, on top of that it was a similar problem to the one encountered by the CF-18. Its not a design issue on the CF-35, its a standard issue that was overcome by attaching a 3rd party communication pod to the cf-18's.

The same technology could be adapted by the f-35.

A lot of the issues with the f-35 are serious issues around the B and C variants or the VTOL and the naval carrier variants.

There's no question that the F-35 is one of the most complex jets ever designed and most of the complexity is based around the demanding software requirements, however the software release of the block 3 component is about 90 to 120 days behind and Lockheed Martin is expecting is to be completed and validated before the 2015 Marine Deployment date.. There's also a problem with the revolutionary helmet that is needed to fight the plane. As of September the Helmet has met its rudimentary requirements and they have dedicated a test bed aircraft. The issue with the helmet is how it displays information, however they still need to do more tests in night and harsh weather conditions.

They are also having some problems with the ALIS software which is used to manage maintenance on the plane and communicate with ground crews. That will be one of the biggest software issues to overcome.

Of course we know that the cost has sky rocketed on the CF-18 to about 135 million per bird. But if you look at the silent eagle which is still in development and not manufacture, the Super Hornet which is 60 to 80 million per copy or the Eurofighter which is between 70 and 90 million euro's per copy and the f-35 and its way more advanced capabilities isn't outside of the realm of an option as you can get away with a smaller fleet.

The main report on the f-35 fixes in terms of software and helmet are expected to be fixed at or before the 2015 marine corp deployment date which is still a few years before Canada would take delivery of the plane.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The Hawk is a trainer aircraft on loan to the CF, not sure where you're going there...

What issues will the Eurofighter have? It's already flying and seen combat. The F-35 is a flying lemon that has had setback after setback, cost the conservativs big political points and ran way over budget. Besides, even if we were to get the F-35 it's not like 65 jets would make a big difference anyway. The comms system doesn't work in the arctic and it loses stealth as soon as it carries an external weapon or fuel pod.

Canada doesn't need to be doing stealth first strike missions anyway. Leave that to the US, we need some aircraft for the same tasks as Libya and Bosnia. We also need them for sovereignty patrols. Get a cheaper aircraft and get more of them.

The Hawk is not on loan, they were bought by DND funds and at the end of the day are owned by DND.

I was just getting at the logistics issues with something from europe, and the fact that buying the plane is only half the story. After sales parts supply is ridiculously expensive, and prices are not set in stone. Parts prices routinely double triple or worse over the life of the aircraft.

Also, these planes are old. It's not just the airframe, but all the technology inside, and not just avionics. At it's core the Hawk is a very old airplane, and it shows. You have no idea what it is going to take, and the extra money we are going to spend, just to get the Hawk to the 20 year mark. You want the same in a fighter jet? You only get to make this purchase once for the next 30 years, why would you start with something that's already 10-20 years old?

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by speede5

The Hawk is not on loan, they were bought by DND funds and at the end of the day are owned by DND.

I was just getting at the logistics issues with something from europe, and the fact that buying the plane is only half the story. After sales parts supply is ridiculously expensive, and prices are not set in stone. Parts prices routinely double triple or worse over the life of the aircraft.

Also, these planes are old. It's not just the airframe, but all the technology inside, and not just avionics. At it's core the Hawk is a very old airplane, and it shows. You have no idea what it is going to take, and the extra money we are going to spend, just to get the Hawk to the 20 year mark. You want the same in a fighter jet? You only get to make this purchase once for the next 30 years, why would you start with something that's already 10-20 years old?

Sorry the hawk is leased not loaned. In any event it's not ours permanently. The reason why I wouldn't want to buy the F-35 vs something else is because it's too damn expensive! It's been an boondoggle from the beginning, the government said part of its duties would be sovereignty patrols when it's clearly designed to sneak in and bomb things. I'm trying to look at things that are really necessary for our military and I don't think this is one of them. If our government wants the ability to bomb stuff go get cruise missiles and launch them from ships.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Sorry the hawk is leased not loaned. In any event it's not ours permanently. The reason why I wouldn't want to buy the F-35 vs something else is because it's too damn expensive! It's been an boondoggle from the beginning, the government said part of its duties would be sovereignty patrols when it's clearly designed to sneak in and bomb things. I'm trying to look at things that are really necessary for our military and I don't think this is one of them. If our government wants the ability to bomb stuff go get cruise missiles and launch them from ships.

Cruise missiles do a lousy job of battlefield support and aren't great in a moving battlefield.

they are terrific for static targets like bridges, airfields and buildings.

But the concept of bomb stuff from an aircraft is that you have eyes on targic in a moving field. you can use a plan to bomb enemy emplacements and take out troop formations, or use medium range harms to take out mobile sam sites, or take out armor columns or logistics columns.

Cruise missiles don't do that they are guided to a point on a map not a target.

The F-35 can fly in low, it can evade or ignore sam sites and the plane can come in on close air support.

If I took 10 F-35's for example and went into a heavily defended area, vs 10 F-18 going into the same type of area. Chances are I would lose far more F-18's, or super hornets or Euro-fighters then I would a F-35 or other low observable platform.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Cruise missiles do a lousy job of battlefield support and aren't great in a moving battlefield.

they are terrific for static targets like bridges, airfields and buildings.

But the concept of bomb stuff from an aircraft is that you have eyes on targic in a moving field. you can use a plan to bomb enemy emplacements and take out troop formations, or use medium range harms to take out mobile sam sites, or take out armor columns or logistics columns.

Cruise missiles don't do that they are guided to a point on a map not a target.

The F-35 can fly in low, it can evade or ignore sam sites and the plane can come in on close air support.

If I took 10 F-35's for example and went into a heavily defended area, vs 10 F-18 going into the same type of area. Chances are I would lose far more F-18's, or super hornets or Euro-fighters then I would a F-35 or other low observable platform.

Clearly you're more knowledgeable on this topic than me, but aren't radar Sam sites and what not very susceptible to radar targeting missiles? Also I thought the battle plan of NATO is to take out Sam sites with b2's or f117's then send in the convention aircraft once the battlefield has been cleared of them. This is the case in Libya, Iraq, Kosovo etc no?

[Zulu29]

Oh yeah one more thing, doesn't the single engine concern you for sovereignty patrols in the arctic?

[CaptainCrunch]

Against Static sam sites absolutely but not against mobile same sites and sam vehicles.

A B52 of F117 can past a standard sam site like a patriat site for example. But so much Sam technology is designed to move and keep up with armored columns.

For example the prototype point defense guantlet system below

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Oh yeah one more thing, doesn't the single engine concern you for sovereignty patrols in the arctic?

nope, Single engines fighters use extremely reliable engines that have actually out performed planes with double engines in terms of reliability.

In fact the maintenance on a single engine fighter is easier and cheaper.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Cruise missiles do a lousy job of battlefield support and aren't great in a moving battlefield.

they are terrific for static targets like bridges, airfields and buildings.

But the concept of bomb stuff from an aircraft is that you have eyes on targic in a moving field. you can use a plan to bomb enemy emplacements and take out troop formations, or use medium range harms to take out mobile sam sites, or take out armor columns or logistics columns.

Cruise missiles don't do that they are guided to a point on a map not a target.

The F-35 can fly in low, it can evade or ignore sam sites and the plane can come in on close air support.

If I took 10 F-35's for example and went into a heavily defended area, vs 10 F-18 going into the same type of area. Chances are I would lose far more F-18's, or super hornets or Euro-fighters then I would a F-35 or other low observable platform.

Or you could just use stealthed drones for that sort of operation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Drones don't carry the payload capability to be effective for close troop support. For survailance and individual target sets absolutely, but Drones are not good on call battle field support weapons platforms.

They are also a single weapon platform carrying for example a maverick missile.

On top of that the first thing to go in a battle field will be communications with the Russians and Chinese heavily researching how to knock out drone data lonks.

Drones are not an alternative to fighters and fighter bombers at this time.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Drones don't carry the payload capability to be effective for close troop support. For survailance and individual target sets absolutely, but Drones are not good on call battle field support weapons platforms.

They are also a single weapon platform carrying for example a maverick missile.

On top of that the first thing to go in a battle field will be communications with the Russians and Chinese heavily researching how to knock out drone data lonks.

Drones are not an alternative to fighters and fighter bombers at this time.

Would what the Russians and Chinese are researching knockout data links between manned fighters as well? You've done a good job selling the F35, just a shame it's coming in so over budget. Do you think 65 us enough?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Would what the Russians and Chinese are researching knockout data links between manned fighters as well? You've done a good job selling the F35, just a shame it's coming in so over budget. Do you think 65 us enough?

True but without the data link the pilot can still operate the plane and its still battlefield effective.

With the drone that's not the case, it cannot operate properly without the data link.

[wooohooo]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

nope, Single engines fighters use extremely reliable engines that have actually out performed planes with double engines in terms of reliability.

In fact the maintenance on a single engine fighter is easier and cheaper.

Haven't you seen Top Gun? You clearly need two engines so when one gets shot out, you have the second one. Amateur

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Would what the Russians and Chinese are researching knockout data links between manned fighters as well? You've done a good job selling the F35, just a shame it's coming in so over budget. Do you think 65 us enough?

I'm not really trying to hard sell the F-35, I think that people need to realize that the vision of this plane is fantastic.

But the well has been soured on it, and part of that is misunderstandings between the problems with the different variants as well.

With the f-35 I'm pretty convinced that 65 is enough becuase it has a high kill multiplier and is such an effective multi role plane.

If we go with a 4th generation fighter, I feel that we would need to follow the same model as the original CF-18 fleet, which is about 130 jets because the attrition could be higher and you need more to provide the same effective cover as the data superior F-35.