Canada seeking to replace CF-18 fighter fleet

[FlameOn]

This whole F-35 procurement is a mess. Lockheed Martin really screwed the pooch there. At this rate the Chinese may have the J-20/J-31 ready before the Americans have the F-35.

It's embarrassing that the only next-gen American fighter manufacturer is Lockheed Martin and they probably have one of the worse records for coming in on time and budget.

[Azure]

Will the J-20/J-31 be able to compare to the F-22?

Still don't get how a program like that can spiral out of control so fast and so hard.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Will the J-20/J-31 be able to compare to the F-22?

Still don't get how a program like that can spiral out of control so fast and so hard.

We don't know the Chinese variant hasn't gone through any serious testing. The only thing that we know is that it looks like a f-22 on a bigger airframe.

The difficult thing for the chinese is not the engines or airframe, its the software that runs a plane like the F-22 and the complicated materials including RAM that took the American's years to figure out how to make.

I have my doubts that a first generation stealth plane made by the Chinese is going to compare to what is basically a third generation American Stealth fighter.

[dammage79]

So I got interested in this topic and did a little research onto the three planes they are now looking at. Cheapest overall by a pretty fair margin Is the Gripen (40-60m U.S). Followed by the Dassault Rafale depending on variant Canada wants (82.3-124m U.S) Eurofighter well, 90m pounds to 143m pounds doesn't seem very good at all.

As mentioned before Gripen has the STOL capability. Gripen is a much smaller plane than the other two which means it carries a much smaller payload.

After reading more than five or six comparisons between the Rafale and the Eurofighter, it seems pretty consensus that Rafale is essentially the same plane with a very small advantage in thrust, maneuvering, range and payload. So by deduction one would choose the Rafale over the more expensive Eurofighter. I also believe I read that the Dassault radar system is slightly better as well. But the eurofighters overall computer system is better by a fair margin. including better measures to be "almost" stealth. Eurofighter is also built by four of Europe's leading aerospace companies versus the Rafale which is built by..well.. the French. If I were to go on looks alone I wouldn't buy either of these two or the Gripen for that matter as I am not a huge fan of delta wing aircraft.

Now, that being said. The Gripen although short range can be bought at pretty much 2 for 1 comparatively and the technology is much cheaper to upgrade through Saab as it comes along. So just in sheer numbers alone we could cover our airspace just as well. Maintenance costs are also severely lower than the rest as well. Also read that Gripens aviaonics at this point in time are actually better than the other two jets. Payload is half that of the Rafale but again you can buy two Gripens for the price of one Rafale and almost four to the cost of one Eurofighter.

I guess this post is rather meaningless without me plagarizing all the info I just absorbed. But I look at it like this. There is always comfort in larger numbers. Id rather have a small army up in the sky versus one or two really really fancy planes that we cannot replace if one gets shot down. I really do think the Gripen has excellent bang for its buck.

Edit: Been reading some more and seems like Dassault is having a sale on Rafales, I read as low as 45m but that could be barebones and not updated software. Gripen also uses the same engine as the Hornet. that makes more sense to buy the Gripen then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy6DJSVolv0

Here is a video I watched last night on the three.

[dammage79]

nm

[jeffman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

We don't know the Chinese variant hasn't gone through any serious testing. The only thing that we know is that it looks like a f-22 on a bigger airframe.

The difficult thing for the chinese is not the engines or airframe, its the software that runs a plane like the F-22 and the complicated materials including RAM that took the American's years to figure out how to make.

I have my doubts that a first generation stealth plane made by the Chinese is going to compare to what is basically a third generation American Stealth fighter.

I think the only thing theyre missing is the engines, they have much better computing power when they designed the J 20/31 than when the Americans designed the F22 so I dont think designing flight control software. Engines on the other hand are the same as the flankers, its kind of like how the early eurofighters had tornado engines on it until the EJ 200 was ready

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

If the primary role of this thing is to defend our airspace, doesn't it need stealth? If we don't have it and our opponent does, we'd lose air superiority fast would we not?

Stealth is required to sneak into heavily defended areas, attack something and get out. Defending our territory is about patrolling large areas, intercepting intruders and engaging them from a distance with missiles. I don't think stealth plays as big a role there.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Stealth is required to sneak into heavily defended areas, attack something and get out. Defending our territory is about patrolling large areas, intercepting intruders and engaging them from a distance with missiles. I don't think stealth plays as big a role there.

Stealth plays a big role in defending our airspace. 1 F-35 could engage several hostile planes before they even know they're being shot at.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Stealth is required to sneak into heavily defended areas, attack something and get out. Defending our territory is about patrolling large areas, intercepting intruders and engaging them from a distance with missiles. I don't think stealth plays as big a role there.

Stealth plays a huge role in air to air interception, it massively increases your kill ratio.

[Bigtime]

Stealth + AWACS = Freaking turkey shoot.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Stealth + AWACS = Freaking turkey shoot.

f-35 digital battlefield systems + awacs + stealth = turkey shoot

if it works like I read itself.

[SebC]

Obviously stealth would greatly increase the survivability of our air force should we be attacked (from what I gather), but would they be able to intercept an opponent who also has stealth?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

Obviously stealth would greatly increase the survivability of our air force should we be attacked (from what I gather), but would they be able to intercept an opponent who also has stealth?

The F-35 ANAPG-81 AESA is considered one of the best airborne radar systems available, but Stealth is stealth.

What makes this radar really excellent though is it is stealthy itself meaning that it is difficult for other planes radar detection systems to pick up and warn, and also its one of the toughest radar systems to jam.

This gives advantage over most radar systems out there that are detectable and can be jammed.

Current doctrine with most airforces is to leave their radar off and depend on AWACs to detect enemy planes and then turn on your radar after that which will not only alert your enemy but tell the enemy where you are.

With the radar system on the F-35 you can combine your radar picture with other aircraft radar pictures and the AWACS through the data link system giving every pilot situational awareness that lesser planes don't have. Also because the F-35 radar is stealthy it won't give away your planes position when you use it unless the other planes get lucky enough to pick up the radar system.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

With the radar system on the F-35 you can combine your radar picture with other aircraft radar pictures and the AWACS through the data link system giving every pilot situational awareness that lesser planes don't have. Also because the F-35 radar is stealthy it won't give away your planes position when you use it unless the other planes get lucky enough to pick up the radar system.

So just detect the data link transmissions instead

That's probably not as hard as it sounds either - using multiple aircraft and measuring the timing and phase of the received signals, you'd be able to pinpoint broadcasts of any kind, irrespective of encryption - you don't need the data, you just need to know where its emanating from

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

So just detect the data link transmissions instead

That's probably not as hard as it sounds either - using multiple aircraft and measuring the timing and phase of the received signals, you'd be able to pinpoint broadcasts of any kind, irrespective of encryption - you don't need the data, you just need to know where its emanating from

Tougher when the target that your trying to triangulate is moving faster then the speed of sound.

And its intermittent frequency agile.

[afc wimbledon]

Of course this hypothetical attack on Canada would have to come from presumably Russia, Greenland or China. Discounting Greenland as unlikley that leaves you with our 40 or 50 operational fighters facing 300 odd enemy fighters an equal number of fighter bombers as well.

Stealth or otherwise we be getting our arses handed to us on a plate, even if we knew they were coming and got every fighter up, and none of them were shot down, the first wave of an assualt would still take out every airfield capable of landing them after.

[CaptainCrunch]

You've heard of Norad right the North American airspace defense treaty. Just because we would require America's help in case of an invasion doesn't mean that we don't have to pay a substantial share of the responsibility and that means having capable air craft to assist in the defense of our airspace. The other consideration is if we do get involved in another mission like Afghanistan, it would be prudent for Canada to be able to supply its own air support and cover instead of entirely depending on another nations.

We can't cheap out and show a lack of commitment to our defense. We can't cheap out and show a lack of commitment to our allies.

Beside, its unlikely that a Russian invasion is going to have a massive amount of air fighter support, they don't have the tanker capability to do that, and the range is too great.

the likely first strike would be using long range high speed bombers firing long range cruise missiles which is what fighters are designed to go after. This is something where the Russians for example have amped up their training now that the Russian Military is back on the rise.



It would probably be accompanied by an air mobile and amphibious assault along the west coast and through the North West.

So we would need fighter bombers to establish air to ground support to deny russians their beach heads. and to attrite their numbers.

On top of that, one of the considerations are Nato based missions like the one in Libya, where Canada played a fairly major role, however the CF-18's that came back from the mission had 5 years of airtime added onto their airframes.

As much as you don't like it, its necessary to contribute to the defense of your nation even if you are in a defense pact with your southern nation because beyond the fact that you have to contribute there is no guarantee that they would be available to help.

And when you are forced by population and by budget to have a smaller military then you make sure that its well trained and properly equipt so it can punch above its weight class and effectively grind up the enemy and slow them down until help can arrive from your allies. We saw what years of Liberal and Conservative neglect did to our Military in Afghanistan and in Bosnia.

[Zulu29]

In all reality these new jets will be used for a) sovereignty patrols b) fulfilling NORAD obligations and c) fulfilling NATO obligations/participate in future NATO actions. In theory, if the F-35 project gets scrapped completely, how will the US conduct its strike operations in the future? I'm certain they have contingency plans should the F-35 not be realized. I'm guessing use B-2's to soften up air defences then send in conventional fighter/bombers to strike primary targets? If that's the case we can still participate in future actions without having to have a stealth aircraft.

[burn_this_city]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us...S-0512-NA&_r=0

[Hatter]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us...S-0512-NA&_r=0

Interesting quotes on the short flight range. Could that be an issue for sovereignty purposes in the arctic? There's a lot of space to cover up there.