F-22 or F-35

[stegner]

I think I heard that only 35% of the CF-18 is ready to be flown at any given time do to the age and need for more tender loving care.   So if only about 35 fighters are availiable at the present moment that is still fairly decent.   However,  I think about 20 years after the new planes enter into service will have run out of planes due to attrition.  65 planes only makes sense only if they plan to buy later versions of the planes.  Howabout buy 65 of the F-35C with options for 5  newer vesions of F-35 C Block II a year for seven years 5 years after the last delivery date of the F-35A than do 2 a year for the next ten years or until the plane is retired so we don't have to spend money upgrading the F-35C to F-35C Block II standards.  The initial F-35C's could be used for training and for things like snowbirds, recce, EW and even a fighter reserve unit.    I think the west has become very complacent and is not fully realizing that Russia, China and India are developing some very advanced planes.  Those planes will be eventually exported and in greater numbers than 65.   I think Robert Gates declaration that the USA doesn't need as many F-22's as the USAF claims as that platform has not down a single thing in Iraq is demonstrative of a very limited frame of thinking and is similar to decision makers in the USA prior to the Second World War.   The Zero fighter became a startling and lethal surprise to those that had to combat it.   I think it is pretty bad when you are ordering less fighter jets than Pierre Trudeau! 

 

[jzaidi1]

I agree with some of your points.  As far as I know the CF-18 are 70% operational at any given time.  An initial batch of 65 F-35s phased in with the CF-18 running air support would be a good combo, as long as the gov't purchase upgraded airframes later on.  Assuming one F-35 can aggressively cover/defend a radius of roughly 250km we would need in excess of 500 fighters to cover Canada from all directions (this includes 200km past shoreline).  As most of you know, all fighters need to pair up so you'd have two fighters defending 250km radius.  The radius would have to overlap with other fighters as well to ensure solid coverage.

**250km radius is an arbitrary number based on my knowledge fuel consumption, round trip flights with some dogfighting and super sonic travel thrown in.  Please correct me if I am off-base.

J

 

[Harry Potter]

Did I miss the Government announcement that it was single sourcing the procurement of our next fighter aircraft to Lockheed Martin's F-35, or are we picking up on a journalist uneducated statement and turning it into a fact?

 

[aesop081]

Did I miss the Government announcement that it was single sourcing the procurement of our next fighter aircraft to Lockheed Martin's F-35, or are we picking up on a journalist uneducated statement and turning it into a fact?

It is widely expected that the JSF will be what is procured BUT no official decision has ever been made on it. Thus far, Canada has only provided money to the project developement in order to secure a place for Canadian industry in its manufacture.

 

[Harry Potter]

Ack.  Thanks.  I didn't think so. 

 

[stegner]

Did I miss the Government announcement that it was single sourcing the procurement of our next fighter aircraft to Lockheed Martin's F-35, or are we picking up on a journalist uneducated statement and turning it into a fact?

Given that Canada has only bought American fighters since the 1960's and that that there will only be two 5th generation American fighters constructed F-22 and F-35-with only one available for export (F-35) I was assuming that the CF would buy the F-35C. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I was looking elsewhere and found that the Superhornet was costing the Aussies around 58 million each for the standard version. I have to wonder if a mixed fleet is not an acceptable compromise, the Superbug offers a electronic warfare version which would be a highly useful thing to have and far better to risk a 58 million dollar aircraft rather than a 110million one on a gun run. In fact in light of the cost of these fighters, are we going to see the end of close in strafing by fighter-bombers? The loss of even one these aircraft to enemy fire would be a significant blow.

 

[George Wallace]

The loss of even one these aircraft to enemy fire would be a significant blow.

In 1939 Dollars, what would the cost of the loss of a Typhon have been to the war effort?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In 1939 Dollars, what would the cost of the loss of a Typhon have been to the war effort?

Considering we had factories cranking them out almost every day and a extensive pilot training plan that pumped out pilots at an astonishing rate. I would say that our inability to replace the aircraft in any reasonable timeframe is significant. Not to mention that if it was lost to a manpad used by 'advisers" to somesort of insurgent group, it would certainly be a victory both tactically and politically for them.

With so few highly expensive aircraft is the cost/benifit ratio worth the risk of a strafing run?

 

[aesop081]

I was looking elsewhere and found that the Superhornet was costing the Aussies around 58 million each for the standard version.

And that RAAF procurement of the super hornet is only an interim measure to hold them over until the arrival in service of JSF.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And that RAAF procurement of the super hornet is only an interim measure to hold them over until the arrival in service of JSF.

Just like the Stykers are "Interim" fix till the new vehicles come out, judging by the issues effecting the aircraft manufacturers, I suspect that buy some interim assets is a good idea.

What do you think of the electronic warfare version and would it be a useful capability (regardless of airframe) for us?

 

[aesop081]

Just like the Stykers are "Interim" fix till the new vehicles come out, judging by the issues effecting the aircraft manufacturers, I suspect that buy some interim assets is a good idea.

Yes it does turn out to be like that sometimes but "interim" usualy means that its not entirely what you need in the first place. When you are stuck with "interim" for a long time, you are accepting a capability gap. The RAAF procured the Super Hornet in order to avoid a larger capability gap between the F-111C and the JSF.

What do you think of the electronic warfare version and would it be a useful capability (regardless of airframe) for us?

Nice aircraft for sure. I will hold my judgement until i see reports on how well the EW system functions. After the B-1B EW suite fiasco and the long series of problems with the ASPJ i'm more cautious when it comes to EW systems performing as advertized.

An aircraft like that would be a "nice to have" for us IMHO. Its too much of a one-trick poney for our limited resources.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

What would you like to see instead of the JSF then?

 

[jzaidi1]

I'd like to see:
F-22 primary striker with Super Hornet combo
OR
F-22 with SAAB Gripen combo
OR
Typhoon with Super Hornet Combo

If we have to pick ONE aircraft then it would be the F-22.  It's supercruise, stealth and agility are unsurpassed, not to mention it has 2 testicles instead of one (testicles = engines).  It is clearly the most advanced "production" fighter jet in the world - and yes it is multi-role capable.

J

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

But the F22 is not for export.

 

[aesop081]

If we have to pick ONE aircraft then it would be the F-22.  It's supercruise, stealth and agility are unsurpassed, not to mention it has 2 testicles instead of one (testicles = engines).  It is clearly the most advanced "production" fighter jet in the world - and yes it is multi-role capable.

And is not datalink capable......is not JHMCS capable......Beleive it or not but the F-22 has so far failed to deliver in alot of areas.

 

[Mach]

Would the Eurofighter Typhoon be an option?

 

[aesop081]

Would the Eurofighter Typhoon be an option?

IMHO.........

Typhoon or Raffale

Both are available now and represent a very cost effective solution to replacing the CF-188.

 

[karl28]

            Maybe sense the Government has announced the purchase of 65 JSF maybe we could supplement these aircraft with another 60-40  Typhoon aircraft that way we can maintain an Jetfighter  strength of 100 ?    I just don't see how 65 aircraft even ones as advanced as the JSF can patrol all this airspace  even with just regular maintenance of the aircraft how many of the 65 could we have flying at any one time ? 

 

[aesop081]

    I just don't see how 65 aircraft even ones as advanced as the JSF can patrol all this airspace 

They dont need to.

You dont have to have fighter coverage for every single square feet of airspace 24/7. We have extensive coverage by radar and other sensors of the aproaches to our airspace. Fighters get positioned according to the threat, available intelligence and data provided by early warning systems.

We have thousands of square miles of ocean to monitor and are doing it with 18 CP-140s. We dont patrol every single inch every single day do we ?