Canada's next fighter the F-35 Lightning II (JSF) Flies

[photon]

(Click to Enlarge)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The costliest international warplane project, the F-35 Lightning 2 Joint Strike Fighter, safely completed its first test flight on Friday, advancing a $276.5 billion program financed by the United States and eight other countries.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...1-ArticlePage2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

This is supposed to replace the F-18 in the next decade.

[CaptainCrunch]

Hopefully the CF-18's can stay up in the air for another decade, with the microfractures and the difficulty in keeping its avionics up to NATO standards its going to be a tough decade.

The Lightning II is going to be a multigenerational leap forward from the concepts of battlefield efficiency, payload and stealth. While its not as stealthy as the nighthawk was or the B2, it does look like a small bird on radar.

Great deal.

[Wookie]

Does it mention the 8 other countries?

[TheDragon]

Said payload capabilities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F35ctolstores.jpg

Pretty versitile aircraft, that.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Wookie

Does it mention the 8 other countries?

"The United States' partners in the aircraft are Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway. Singapore and Israel are also involved but have not yet committed funds."

We'll see if it manages to replace the A-10 though.. the F-16 was supposed to replace the A-10 wasn't it? The A-10's gotta be one of my favorite airplanes and they can keep upgrading it forever as far as I'm concerned!

[Looger]

well, 'supposed to replace' is one of those wierd things, i believe that the f-16 was originally intended to replace many aspects of the multirole F-4 phantom.

the F-4 still remains in the wild weasel role in the USMC, israel, and turkey as it's very tough, i've read that not once has a phantom exploded in mid-air in all the combat situations it's been involved with in vietnam, mideast, etc.

glad to see canada getting a fighter more suited to our actual infrastructure and requirements.

the F-18 is a naval strike fighter, and we've using it as a short-air intercept and CAS (close air support) dumb-bomb dive-bomber for the majority of its life, only upgrading to guided air-to-ground munitions for the 1999 bombing of yugoslavia.

the JSF has many capabilities (including naval) and many potential configurations. it's a GREAT CAS aircraft, the USMC was i believe the first commissioner of it and i've watched its development with interest. canada is a 10% partner if i recall but i tend to think turkey will probably bump us in line for deployment with their very real combat requirements.

i don't think it's as fast as the CF-18, which sucks but i think it's a far better aircraft for say, an extended tour in afghanistan for when we lose total control of the outback in that country and are limited to guarding the pipeline while we provide afghanis with unocal's promised 'carpet of bombs'. having troops pinned down in defensive positions means we could use aircraft like the JSF that can get into theater fast from the base, and slow down to strafe infantry. yes, it's overkill to go after goat-herders, but it sure beats attack helicopters that vent their heat straight up, lower than the peaks that missiles are raining down on them from in that very high country.

CaptainCrunch, i've heard here and there, and in posts by yourself, that we've looked at having a squadron of F-22 raptors stripped down a bit, any news on that front?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Looger

well, 'supposed to replace' is one of those wierd things, i believe that the f-16 was originally intended to replace many aspects of the multirole F-4 phantom.

the F-4 still remains in the wild weasel role in the USMC, israel, and turkey as it's very tough, i've read that not once has a phantom exploded in mid-air in all the combat situations it's been involved with in vietnam, mideast, etc.

glad to see canada getting a fighter more suited to our actual infrastructure and requirements.

the F-18 is a naval strike fighter, and we've using it as a short-air intercept and CAS (close air support) dumb-bomb dive-bomber for the majority of its life, only upgrading to guided air-to-ground munitions for the 1999 bombing of yugoslavia.

the JSF has many capabilities (including naval) and many potential configurations. it's a GREAT CAS aircraft, the USMC was i believe the first commissioner of it and i've watched its development with interest. canada is a 10% partner if i recall but i tend to think turkey will probably bump us in line for deployment with their very real combat requirements.

i don't think it's as fast as the CF-18, which sucks but i think it's a far better aircraft for say, an extended tour in afghanistan for when we lose total control of the outback in that country and are limited to guarding the pipeline while we provide afghanis with unocal's promised 'carpet of bombs'. having troops pinned down in defensive positions means we could use aircraft like the JSF that can get into theater fast from the base, and slow down to strafe infantry. yes, it's overkill to go after goat-herders, but it sure beats attack helicopters that vent their heat straight up, lower than the peaks that missiles are raining down on them from in that very high country.

CaptainCrunch, i've heard here and there, and in posts by yourself, that we've looked at having a squadron of F-22 raptors stripped down a bit, any news on that front?

The DND looked at the Raptor since it fit the profile of the general purpose air superiority/ground attack fighter that Canada needs since we can't afford to have specialist aircraft. The strip downs included a slightly lower avionics and computer suite, and some of its truly stealth capabilities wouldn't have been there, but the costs of the F22 were still prohibative. the f-35 is a strong and much cheaper alternative, and is an easier transistion for an F18 pilot.

The remark earlier that the F-35 is a replacement for the A-10 Thunderbolt is a little misleading, its mission specs are nowhere near close to the A-10 Warthog which is an extremely low level, heavily armoured subsonic attack bird. The F-35 while a low level attack plane is an in and out theatre weapon that can't take the damage that the A-10 can, which can basically attack at low speeds and engage and destroy a huge amount of enemy armored units with multiple passes.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Looger

well, 'supposed to replace' is one of those wierd things, i believe that the f-16 was originally intended to replace many aspects of the multirole F-4 phantom.

the F-4 still remains in the wild weasel role in the USMC, israel, and turkey as it's very tough, i've read that not once has a phantom exploded in mid-air in all the combat situations it's been involved with in vietnam, mideast, etc.

Yeah except you can't see out the back of an F-4 because well, there's no bubble canopy. Hey check your six! Sorry I can't, my seat and the fuselage is in the way! But hey, this was the 50s when it was designed and the Air Force guys figured everything was going supersonic so you didn't need to see out the back.

The JSF comes in many versions and sadly, I think Canada will probably pick up the budget version which has no STOVL capability.

[Looger]

ha, yeah the f-4 has warts, can't deny that.

it ain't a dogfighter, in fact i think only one pilot made a gun kill in vietnam with one, robin olds. i believe some israeli pilots have gun kills with them, i read a big article in air forces monthly by an indian observer on the egyptian side of the six-day war that had a very detailed tally.

the 1950s were a strange time in conceptual military terms, many out-of-date concepts like the looming threat of thousands of bombers appearing over the arctic circle.

i'd say in that light it's amazing that the phantom is as viable today as it is, because many designs of that time are not to be seen these days.

[Flashpoint]

The F4 doesn't have any guns. Or at least it didn't in Vietnam.

(I learned that from "Dogfights!" on the Discovery Channel)

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

The F4 doesn't have any guns. Or at least it didn't in Vietnam.

(I learned that from "Dogfights!" on the Discovery Channel)

there was a pod attached, under the left of the nose i believe, under certain mission constraints.

probably just backup as the hit ratio for missiles in vietnam was not high.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by photon

"The United States' partners in the aircraft are Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway. Singapore and Israel are also involved but have not yet committed funds."

We'll see if it manages to replace the A-10 though.. the F-16 was supposed to replace the A-10 wasn't it? The A-10's gotta be one of my favorite airplanes and they can keep upgrading it forever as far as I'm concerned!

I'm with you, I think the Warthog is the coolest plane ever, you can blow half of the wing off and it can still fly...I suppose the F-35 could replace it...just like you could replace a tractor with a Audi Q7...

I wish Canada would pickup some old A10's just for ****s and giggles

[TheyCallMeBruce]

I don't see a gatling gun on the F-35. One of the A-10s main weapon of choice is the tank busting 30mm.

[underGRADFlame]

Which version of it is Canada looking at A B or C? Anyone know?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Which version of it is Canada looking at A B or C? Anyone know?

Since B is more expensive/complicated it is probably out question, and we don't have any aircraft carriers, so C is useless.
So by power of deduction, I'm gonna go with A.

[CrusaderPi]

I've been told to that the Canadian Armed Forces are unlikely to see any of these fighters. You can blame a General Hillyer

[photon]

Why would we commit $500 million more to the project if we're not going to get them (as we just did)?

[CrusaderPi]

This is second hand information, but Gen Hillyer is and old school army guy, who doesn't see the need for air combat in Afghanistan or the future. That is why the CF-18s aren't in Afghanistan currently, and that is also why they are trying to make them last until 2017.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

I've been told to that the Canadian Armed Forces are unlikely to see any of these fighters. You can blame a General Hillyer

Well the CF-18's aren't going to last much longer, so unless we get these I don't know how our gliders and sling shots are gonna stand up.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by photon

Why would we commit $500 million more to the project if we're not going to get them (as we just did)?

I believe it grants Canadian companies access to a higher supplier status within the project. No signing on as a "partner", no access to contracts.