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

[peter12]

Originally Posted by 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.

Interesting. He could be right, current mission specs demand attack helicopters more-so than supersonic fighters.

[photon]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

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.

Hm, good point. I'm sure it would, and would probably generate some jobs and tech development in Canada.

Still, we do need a replacement for the F-18's eventually, unless we want to contract out all air defence of our country to the U.S.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

To play Devil's Advocate: Would a larger fleet of newer model used F-16's be a better solution for Canada's immediate air defence needs? The cost between used F-16 (C/D variants, block 50/52) and JSF has to be huge, enough to possibly get some heavy lift Chinooks, or CAS helos.


Alternatively, what of going after brand new F-16 E/F variants? Could probably cover off Canada's needs, although it certianly lacks the sexy features of the F-35. Again, the cost savings could be worth it, preserving the role of one defence arm's abilities, while possibly expanding others.

[CaptainCrunch]

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

Canada has already committed to replacing thier 86 CF-18's with 66 JSF's. Hillier does understand the need for both tactical airpower, and air supremecy over the battlefield, something that helicopters can not give you.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

To play Devil's Advocate: Would a larger fleet of newer model used F-16's be a better solution for Canada's immediate air defence needs? The cost between used F-16 (C/D variants, block 50/52) and JSF has to be huge, enough to possibly get some heavy lift Chinooks, or CAS helos.


Alternatively, what of going after brand new F-16 E/F variants? Could probably cover off Canada's needs, although it certianly lacks the sexy features of the F-35. Again, the cost savings could be worth it, preserving the role of one defence arm's abilities, while possibly expanding others.

While the F-16 is a superb fighter, its more limited in its air to ground role then both the F18 and the JSF's. The 16 is more classified as a light fighter/air superiority fighter, and is not a good primary fighter/bomber. Its also based on a 30 year old airframe is is reaching what is considered to be the end of life from a technology standpoint.

The JSF is more expensive but its justified by its strong multimission capability and its heavy payrole capability.

[Looger]

the payload is an upgrade over the CF-18, which i think has something like 13000~14000 lbs. and the JSF depending on the configuration is up around 15000~17000 lbs.

the F-16 would be a great low-buck option but it is a fourth-generation fighter, the JSF is an entry level fifth-generation and if we want to stay competitive and not get our asses shot off by 40-year old surface-to-air hardware then it's a no-brainer.

no, the JSF is definitely not as great a pure dogfighter as an F-16 but it is amazingly good at adapting to any role.

and as mentioned its small radar cross section will make it far more effective against old-school ground-based defenses.

[Barnes]

Didn't we use up most of our missiles/bombs in Kosovo? I thought that's why we didn't send any CF-18's to Afghanistan.

One cool thing about our CF-18s I like is the dark oval under the cockpit so at certain angles, enemy fighters can't tell which way is up. Haven't seen this on any other plane.

[Bobblehead]

A bit of an old thread, but I just read an interesting article on the F-22 Raptor (which was mentioned above).

Sounds like quite the bird:

To confront the F-22-led “Blue Air” collection, the joint force mustered its best “Red Air” threat—front-line F-15s, F-16s, and Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets. The F-22’s team blitzed the opposition with a favorable 241-to-two kill ratio. What’s more, the two lost aircraft were F-15Cs, not F-22s. The Raptors came through the engagements untouched.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

A bit of an old thread, but I just read an interesting article on the F-22 Raptor (which was mentioned above).

Sounds like quite the bird:

In any case, a JSF won't match a Raptor. It was never designed to anyway.

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

In any case, a JSF won't match a Raptor. It was never designed to anyway.

The JSF is nothing close to what the F22 is capable of. The F22 has somewhat of a stealth Capability, hard for radar to locate and it runs at a speed thats faster than the JSF.

JSF won't even come close to matching a raptor.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by STeeLy

The JSF is nothing close to what the F22 is capable of. The F22 has somewhat of a stealth Capability, hard for radar to locate and it runs at a speed thats faster than the JSF.

JSF won't even come close to matching a raptor.

The F22 is a premiere front of the line delivery system with the range, speed, stealth capability, payload and battlefield integration tool kit to actually project power.

The JSF is a good well balanced fighter with nice ground to air capability and enough of advantage to go against other nations that have 3rd and 4th generation capabilities and come out ahead of them.

Canada can not afford specialized aircraft like the American's Russians and Chinese can, our model airforce has to be built around the Israeli model where every fighter is capable of multi-roles, and the JSF is the best answer to that and a significant upgrade to the F-18 (which was a wonderful plane in its time).

Now if only we could buy some Apache gunships to support the troops on the ground.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Now if only we could buy some Apache gunships to support the troops on the ground.

Who needs Apache gunships when we have snipers making kills over 2km

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Who needs Apache gunships when we have snipers making kills over 2km

True, but its nice to have a friend overhead with a chain gun and a crap load of either fin stabilized unguided rockets or a maverick or two.

A Sniper can't take out a tank, or a MLRS

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

True, but its nice to have a friend overhead with a chain gun and a crap load of either fin stabilized unguided rockets or a maverick or two.

A Sniper can't take out a tank, or a MLRS

I know. I was just being a smart ass.
Does the canadian military own any helicopters (of the attack kind)?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by arsenal

I know. I was just being a smart ass.
Does the canadian military own any helicopters (of the attack kind)?

No, however the Griffins can mount door guns, but nothing heavy, which to me is a mistake.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by 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.

It is also a replacement for the harrier is it not? I saw somewhere that it has vertical takeoff which makes it new workhorse for planes.