Canada seeking to replace CF-18 fighter fleet

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Stealth is becoming less and less of a factor as militaries are using different bands of RADAR to detect stealth aircraft. The F22 was tracked by French RADAR years ago as it flew to the Farnborough airshow. Stealth is not infallible and when you strip that strength away from the F35 and you are left with a plane that can't run, can't turn, can't climb and can't dog fight. It's payload is only better than the Gripen, it's single engine has been catching fire lately, produces a massive IR signature that makes it a great target for even older generation heat seeking missiles and can't be transported on the Greyhound transport plane to US carriers.

I remember that story, problem is they knew where to look for it, because they used their transponders,otherwise it looked like something between a flock of geese or santa's sled.

In the real world it would have taken out the radar while they scratched their chins and then continue on to the real tarket.

[dammage79]

I still think the Saab Gripen is the wise choice. Something about a jet specifically designed for arctic service by an arctic country rings true to me.

I want to make sure I read the story correctly about Canada buying 4 F-35's. Did they mean that Canada would purchase AND take delivery of these four unit's in 2017 or just place the order and take delivery much later? I read this as well and want to know if this is true as well:

From this site: http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/

Some of you have already seen reports that Canada has plans to purchase four F-35s in 2017.

First of all... Calm down.

The Canadian government needed to place its order this month if it wanted any F-35s built next year. This is not happening, as CF-18s are getting life-extensions and its replacement decision has been put off.

Instead, the DND is requesting a "swap" allowing it to change places with the USAF this would push back Canada's purchase until 2017 (at the earliest) while the USAF gets our spot in line.

The USAF have agreed to this under two important conditions:

1: The USAF keeps its planned 2016 IOC date.

2: Canada's delay will not undermine international faith in the JSF program.

While these conditions may seem a tad unfair at first, but they could very well act as a litmus test. If the USAF pushes back its IOC date, or there is a sign that this move will topple the house of cards that is the JSF program; Canada will be well served in canceling its participation outright.

I don't see anything really wrong with getting to start and get some real hands on time with the thing to see if it will do what is needed of it.

[FlameOn]

F-35 is proving to be a bit of a dud. Apparently it's been bested in a dogfight with the F-16 as it is much less maneuverable and the helmet that is supposed to provide better situational awareness for the pilot is actually too big for the fighter cockpit canopy.

In the report, which Axe had obtained but did not publish in full, the F-35 pilot reported that his aircraft was in a "clean" configuration for the test, carrying nothing under its wings or in its internal weapons bays. The F-16, on the other hand, was flying with under-wing external fuel drop-tanks, which in theory would have put the aircraft at an aerodynamic disadvantage.

Apparently, it didn't. "Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement," the F-35 pilot reported. That means the F-35 constantly found itself flying slower and more sluggishly, unable to effectively maneuver to get the F-16 in its sights.

Furthermore, the F-35's high-tech helmet, which is supposed to give the pilot the ability to essentially "see through" the plane with the assistance of external cameras and sensors, didn't help matters. "The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft," the pilot reported, which made it impossible to keep visual contact with the F-16 during the dogfight.

So we have a less maneuverable jet at many times the cost of the current gen fighters.

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...waxed-by-f-16/

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

F-35 is proving to be a bit of a dud. Apparently it's been bested in a dogfight with the F-16 as it is much less maneuverable and the helmet that is supposed to provide better situational awareness for the pilot is actually too big for the fighter cockpit canopy.



So we have a less maneuverable jet at many times the cost of the current gen fighters.

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...waxed-by-f-16/

When was the last time an active dog fight happened in combat? I still think that the F-35 fits the requirements of what Canada needs best without buying tech that is already 20 years old.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

When was the last time an active dog fight happened in combat? I still think that the F-35 fits the requirements of what Canada needs best without buying tech that is already 20 years old.

I was also under the impression that the F35 was a multi-role fighter. You'd expect it to be less capable in individual areas, like dogfighting, but capable in more roles. For a nation with limited numbers of aircraft, it seems like a better choice.

If the CF18s were also outshining the C35s in air to surface missions, I'd be concerned. That is the most likely use for Canadian jets. Canada is most heavily involved in peace keeping missions and like UGFlame said doesn't do any dogfighting.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

When was the last time an active dog fight happened in combat? I still think that the F-35 fits the requirements of what Canada needs best without buying tech that is already 20 years old.

To be fair though, wasn't that exact same statement made in Vietnam when the F-4s got deployed? They deleted the guns off that fighter because missiles made dogfighting a thing of the past. When unacceptable combat losses mounted from Vietnamese and Soviet pilots during dogfights, they put a guns back onto the F-4 and started up the Top Gun program at the naval academy.

Point is, a fighter that is meant to replace a 20 year old design, should be no worse than the 20 year old design. And we haven't had a hot war where a dogfighting would be required in a long time, doesn't mean we should be less ready for one.

[CaptainCrunch]

The F-35 is not a dog fighter, and as the post above said, the day and age of dog fighting is coming to an end.

Its designed to carry the advanced Amraam which has a C variant with over a 100 km range. The Asraam which can hit a target from up to 50 kms away and the Aim-9x which is a short range all aspect weapon.

While it carries its standard air to ground guided munitions but its also designed to carry long range standoff munitions.

Sitting there and saying that it lost a dog fight to an f-16 and calling this plane a bust is disingenuous at best.

Frankly in a true combat arena with the F-35's low observable characteristics, the ability to coordinate with other assets in the area, and sensor suite. The F-35 would come in, map the area, coordinate with all of the other assets in the area (ships, ground units etc) and then sneak into extreme range and kill the f-16 before the pilot could even get into a defensible position or be in a position to fire back.

Most air to air action now is not about close range dog fighting, its about getting into a position to fire your missile before your enemy knows your there, then you shoot and turn.

Top Gun was made in the 1980's. They made the Tomcat into a dog fighter, but the Tomcat wasn't a great dog fighter, it was a plane designed to carry the Phoenix a near over horizon smart missile that would fire missiles from 190 km's away.

While the need for speed was nice, the movie would have incredibly boring if it showed Maverick going up against the so called Mig 31's and all you heard from the back seat as Maverick flew level was "locking on and firing" before you even saw those dastardly Russians.

The best way to ensure the survivability of your pilots and the ability to continue on your mission is to know what's happening in your battlefield, punch your enemy in the face before he can throw a punch at you or before they know your there, and move on.

The F-35 is designed for that.

Dog Fighting is going away because there's a risk of losing pilots due to a lucky gun shot or missile shot.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

To be fair though, wasn't that exact same statement made in Vietnam when the F-4s got deployed? They deleted the guns off that fighter because missiles made dogfighting a thing of the past. When unacceptable combat losses mounted from Vietnamese and Soviet pilots during dogfights, they put a guns back onto the F-4 and started up the Top Gun program at the naval academy.

Point is, a fighter that is meant to replace a 20 year old design, should be no worse than the 20 year old design. And we haven't had a hot war where a dogfighting would be required in a long time, doesn't mean we should be less ready for one.

Because the Russians designed good dog fighters, with decent sensors and guns. The American's had a stupid design flaw in the day and age when sensors on planes weren't long range, there was no low observability and missile range was very short range.

The guns would have been un-neccessary if the F-4 would have had a longer range sensor suite. and more reliable longer range missiles. their missile envelope was about 20 miles with the I think sparrow and early rear aspect side winder.

The F-4 design initially was confused.

They had to basically let the enemy get within 20 miles because of their sensors and their missiles and at that point it becomes a dog fight and the F-4 was a poor dogfighter and designing it without a gun was just plane stupid. The American's were stupid when they designed it. They basically discounted the Russian factor in Vietnam.

With the f-35 they're going to see you long before the enemy sees them. Then the enemy is going to be put on the defensive because of over the horizon missile attacks.

And every unit around the F-35 will know where the enemy is and what it is.

[CaptainCrunch]

As an addon, I was reading a book on post cold war combat aviation and one Russian General who was in charge of their air defense in the cold war basically stated "Chances are if you're dog fighting, you're dog fighting over something that you don't want to dog fight over"

In other words, getting into a dog fight usually means that you're in a totally defensive situation.

The plane in the best offensive position is the one that gets its weapons on target and fires first.

[automaton 3]

The pilot's full report is up.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/rea...t-719a4e66f3eb

The F-16D was carrying 2 external fuel tanks and still outmaneuvered the F-35 in clean configuration handily.

They didn't even get into that the F-35 is only LO to certain radar frequencies in certain directions when in clean configuration and has a brutal IR signature.

The design was compromised from day one by the insistence for maximum commonality with the Marine Corps VSTOL model.