Canada seeking to replace CF-18 fighter fleet

[FlameOn]

Someone is stealing American made F-15/F-16 Pratt and Whitney jet engines from all over the world. Maybe the Chinese are trying to get ahead and get some design insight from these old engines to try to cut their reliance on the Russian Klimovs and since Shenyang WS-15 engine for their new fighter is reportedly running into development problems.

http://defensetech.org/2012/12/07/f-...2887570&rank=5

[CaptainCrunch]

When those engines came into use they changed the aircraft fighter industry.

They were the first engines that allowed a plane go completely vertical and climb and accelerated while carrying a full combat load.

Before they came out fighters could climb, but couldn't accelerate during the climb unless you used afterburner.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Russian's biggest fear isn't ICBM's its deep penetration bombers with stealth technology.

Intercepting ICBM's is a matter of math and computing power.

Defeating Stealth is a whole other thing.

Isn't the flip side of this that whatever plane we buy, it wouldn't be able to stop a Russian stealth bomber?

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by SebC

Isn't the flip side of this that whatever plane we buy, it wouldn't be able to stop a Russian stealth bomber?

That's if they had any. Russian got put back more than two decades in terms of R&D when the Soviet Union collapsed. They have some proposed designs right now but it'll be at least a couple of decades before they even have anything working to replace the old Backfire and Blackjack bombers.

Heck the Russians are still using the old TU-95 turboprops from the 50s

[CaptainCrunch]

Well the TU-95's are pretty much used for recon and targeting and have shifted over the Russian naval aviation. They really aren't considered bombers any more they are a plane with massive downward looking radar.

The Backfires and Blackjacks are still a threat. Russian design philosophy in bomber designed is based around high speed insertions hence both of those bombers are strange designs that incorporate afterburners.

Its kinda funny but if you look at the Blackjack it looks suspiciously like the B-1 Lancer

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Then why are the Chinese, Russians, American's and Europeon aeronautical defense companies throwing their lot into stealth.

Radar theory really doesn't change that much.

Admittedly the F-35 has what's called a stealth radar tracking system which puts out lower background type energy that makes it undetectable, but that doesn't mean that it can effectively pick up stealth actively.

As of right now and you can look at any journal in the world that discusses air doctrine and stealth there isn't a counter that can overcome the air frame reflective irregularities and the RAM materials to get a solid return off of a properly built stealth aircraft.

The Russian's biggest fear isn't ICBM's its deep penetration bombers with stealth technology.


Intercepting ICBM's is a matter of math and computing power.

Defeating Stealth is a whole other thing.

Asking why defense contractors are throwing their weight into one particular technology is a fairly simple answer - because it'll sell today, nevermind how useful it will be tomorrow.

I'd wager that 30-40 years from now, which fits within the lifespan of airframes coming onstream now (ie. the F-35), we won't be detecting airborne objects with classical radar - we'll identify them via some kind of application of quantum mechanics. Lockheed, among others, is already working on technology in this field.

Regardless, it's way off field of this conversation - stealth clearly has applications today against current detection systems, I completely agree with you. And you know tons more than me

[T@T]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Well the TU-95's are pretty much used for recon and targeting and have shifted over the Russian naval aviation. They really aren't considered bombers any more they are a plane with massive downward looking radar.

The Backfires and Blackjacks are still a threat. Russian design philosophy in bomber designed is based around high speed insertions hence both of those bombers are strange designs that incorporate afterburners.

Its kinda funny but if you look at the Blackjack it looks suspiciously like the B-1 Lancer

Didn't someone go to jail for that?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by T@T

Didn't someone go to jail for that?

I hadn't heard that but it would be interesting, I can't find any stories on it.

[Bigtime]

Personally I like the look of the Blackjack more than the B-1

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Frankly if there was a Chinese or Russian invasion it would be very tough for them to establish air superiority in the opening days of the war because they wouldn't have the bases and logistics to do it. That's where our 65 planes would have an advantage in battlefield support and working to prevent the easy creation of beachheads and logistical tracks.

In the 25-35 year time frame that new jets should cover, there is zero chance the Russians or the Chinese will be invading North America. Frankly, there is zero chance anyone in the forseeable future will be invading North America. It's complete fantasy.

The logistical requirements alone make it impossible. Where are these hypothetical invaders going to base out of? How are they going to avoid the utterly dominant US Navy whilst they are transporting their troops to the NA mainland? How are these troops going to be supplied, again with the US Navy in the way? Canada and the US together are bigger in land area than Russia - how many troops do you think it would take to completely occupy both nations?

This sets aside the US nuclear arsenal as well. Do you think any nation is going to be stupid enough to launch a land invasion with the certainty that the US is going to start - at minimum - a limited nuclear strike if it looks like it has any chance of succeeding?

A war with Russia or China in a proxy theatre is barely believable, as a carefully chosen battleground in their backyard might give them enough advantage to overcome the huge American advantages in technology, equipment and logistical support. That either one could envision successfully prosecuting a fight over here is completely unrealistic.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And if you have 65 advanced aircraft that are ie generation 5 aircraft they are worth 2 to 3 times the number of their counterparts in older less capable aircraft.

Depends on what role those aircraft need to play. If - as has been the case since the Soviet Union went down into chaos - you are mostly intent on fighting 3rd world circus armies and fanatical tribesmen, you just need a platform that can carry a lot of bombs and missiles to blow things up, preferably as accurately as possible. This doesn't require stealth. Further, if stealth means you can't carry as much ordnance, your cheaper but better-armed plane might actually be an advantage for the side that has both types, especially if the cheaper plane is also easier to maintain and support.

To use a hypothetical, but much more plausible scenario than any kind of Russkie invasion, say NATO is fighting Syria, in the first few days of the conflict American F-22s destroy all their air-to-air assets. Then the F-35s go in and destroy all the Syrian radar and many of their SAMs. Now you can send in whatever you like, because the air war is essentially over, and if you can send in a hundred planes with twice the armament of 50 of your fancy stealth planes, you have 4 times the effect on the ground than you would spending twice the money.

[Zulu29]

45.8 billion dollars over 42 years for the F-35.

[dammage79]

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/...ation-fighter/

Part 2: http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/...rcraft-part-2/


These are all great points. And thought it was time for a thread bump

[Azure]

Good articles.

I don't see the downside. We don't need the latest, greatest anyways.

[CaptainCrunch]

One argument I would have with the article is that the pricing comparison between the Griffin and the F-35C is that its not a consistent valuation valuation. From my understanding the Canadian valuation includes consumable materials usage and spare parts, whereas the 80 million per copy Griffin is just the air craft cost.

Going from memory the JAS-39 is not stealth or low observable so I don't think that you can argue the same size airforce. With the F-35 the argument is that with a harder to kill low observable aircraft you can have a smaller airforce because your kill ratio is higher. With the JAS-39 your almost going to have to buy more planes.

The F-35 also kills the JAS-39 on the digital battlefield it has far better data links and over all situational awareness capability then the Eurofighter or the Griphen.

I get that its cheaper, but in the end is it a better value for longer? I don't know, I don't believe so, I find it hard to compare a Generation 5 aircraft to generation 4 to 4.5 aircraft.


the rest I'll have to review when I get a chance, its an interesting argument.

[dammage79]

EDIT: Nm

[CaptainCrunch]

And that's find with that comparable, however the article was comparing the F-35 to the 39 which is a bad comparable. However when I look at the expected changes to the NG, it looks like an improvement on avionics, better operating distances, and a bigger payload, I don't see anything about stealth or low radar observable changes. I also don't see improvements that compare to the F-35's digital suite.

[MarchHare]

I get that its cheaper, but in the end is it a better value for longer? I don't know

And that's the crux of the issue and why we should have a competitive bidding process. Maybe the F-35 is the best combination of performance, avionics, purchase price, and long-term value. Maybe another fighter is a better alternative. Until the government solicits and fully evaluates competing bids, none of us can possibly know which is the best option for the Canadian Forces (and the taxpayers).

People often say that the government should be run more like a business. How many businesses do you know that would single-source a procurement deal of this magnitude? That's what I thought.

[photon]

This invalidates one paragraph anyway.

[nik-]

That plane has an erection

[automaton 3]

^^^The Navy F-35C model uses the probe and drogue refueling method, same as our CF-18's.

Unfortunately the Air Force F-35A model (which is what we would likely end up) with uses the boom refueling method, which our tankers are not equipped to do.

The manufacturer has apparently made assurances that they can produce A models that are capable of using the probe and drogue. We know what the means though - extra engineering and production costs and an orphan fleet that only Canada operates.