F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[SupersonicMax]

The only issue with the F-15E or SE is the two-seat thing...  You'd be hardpressed to find any fighter pilots, in Canada anyways, that will want to share a cockpit and we have 0 expertise in fighter/bomber on the ACSO side.  This expertise takes a long time to develop.

Other than that, I agree we should get Strike Eagles if we go 4th Gen.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The only issue with the F-15E or SE is the two-seat thing...  You'd be hardpressed to find any fighter pilots, in Canada anyways, that will want to share a cockpit and we have 0 expertise in fighter/bomber on the ACSO side.  This expertise takes a long time to develop.

Other than that, I agree we should get Strike Eagles if we go 4th Gen.

"Want" to to share a cockpit?  : Jesus wept, you are self centred.

We actually do have a reasonably sized cadre of ACSOs with A-Jet backseat time as EWOs.

I am pretty sure IF we went the two seat fighter route (a very big IF, I admit), we would sort out the WSO issue through a combination of Exchange postings and OTU training.

 

[PuckChaser]

You'd be hardpressed to find any fighter pilots, in Canada anyways, that will want to share a cockpit

Welcome to the Canadian Forces, we do what we're told here?

 

[Kirkhill]

The only issue with the F-15E or SE is the two-seat thing...  You'd be hardpressed to find any fighter pilots, in Canada anyways, that will want to share a cockpit ...

Thereby demonstrating the continuing value in stereotypes and caricatures.

Perhaps it is time to return the Fighter Jocks back to where they belong?  The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery?  After all they are nothing more than "manned missiles" and the artillery has been in the business of co-ordinating and countering aerial missiles longer than the RCAF.  That would be the historically appropriate solution.  >

 

[medicineman]

The only issue with the F-15E or SE is the two-seat thing...  You'd be hardpressed to find any fighter pilots, in Canada anyways...

I wonder if there are any old Voodoo drivers out there that might have something to say about that...

MM

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thereby demonstrating the continuing value in stereotypes and caricatures.

Perhaps it is time to return the Fighter Jocks back to where they belong?  The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery?  After all they are nothing more than "manned missiles" and the artillery has been in the business of co-ordinating and countering aerial missiles longer than the RCAF.  That would be the historically appropriate solution.  >

Well since the CF appears to be in "back to the future" mode, maybe we want this ...

Air Marshal (then Lieutenant) William Avery "Billy" Bishop, VC, CB, DSO & Bar, MC, DFC, ED, LL.D
wearing his spiffy, high collared, khaki, Royal Flying Corps uniform

 

[SupersonicMax]

"Want" to to share a cockpit?  : Jesus wept, you are self centred.

We actually do have a reasonably sized cadre of ACSOs with A-Jet backseat time as EWOs.

I am pretty sure IF we went the two seat fighter route (a very big IF, I admit), we would sort out the WSO issue through a combination of Exchange postings and OTU training.

Managing a single EW pod in a training environment and employing weapons systems in a shooting war are two extremely different things.  The OTU would not solve the issue in the short to medium term as the OTU doesn't give experience per se.  It teaches basics.

As far as not wanting to share a cockpit, it's not a matter of being self-centered or not.  In the last 30+ years, Canadian fighter pilots flew by themselve in their cockpit.  As a result, they are the masters of their own destiny. This is a major shift in philosophy when you add a second body in their cockpit and it would take quite a while to get an efficient working chemistry going. You can't "order them" to fly together expecting them to be the A-Team right away: it'll take years.  In that sense, yes, it is a major obstacle in getting a 2-seat fighter.

PuckChaser: it's not as simple as that, unfortunately...

 

[dimsum]

Managing a single EW pod in a training environment and employing weapons systems in a shooting war are two extremely different things.  The OTU would not solve the issue in the short to medium term as the OTU doesn't give experience per se.  It teaches basics.

As far as not wanting to share a cockpit, it's not a matter of being self-centered or not.  In the last 30+ years, Canadian fighter pilots flew by themselve in their cockpit.  As a result, they are the masters of their own destiny. This is a major shift in philosophy when you add a second body in their cockpit and it would take quite a while to get an efficient working chemistry going. You can't "order them" to fly together expecting them to be the A-Team right away: it'll take years.  In that sense, yes, it is a major obstacle in getting a 2-seat fighter.

PuckChaser: it's not as simple as that, unfortunately...

The RAAF transitioned from F-111s (where the Nav was really no more than a bombardier with some Nav stuff) to Super Hornets (WSOs) in the late 2000s.  Sure, there is some friction between the "Classics" and the "Supers" and they probably weren't the A-Team right away, but of *course* no one expects anyone to be the A-Team upon transitioning to a new airframe. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

They had the luxury of having a second airframe to bridge the gap, while the SH crews developped their chemestry, which we do not.

 

[dimsum]

They had the luxury of having a second airframe to bridge the gap, while the SH crews developped their chemestry, which we do not.

Because the RCAF will scrap the Classic Hornets and transition immediately (and at once) to SHs or F-15Es?  : 

IF it were to happen, I'd think that one sqn (and the trg sqn, or a subset thereof) would transition to the new platform while it finds its feet (and crew model), while the other one essentially bridges the gap.  For the initial cadre, the Pilots/WSOs would be trained elsewhere, like what we did with the C-17s (and what the RAAF did/are doing for their SH/Growlers). 

 

[Good2Golf]

If the hunt against ISIL is anything like the hunt against Ghadaffi, not only will ACSOs be in the thick of things, but probably a few AESOPs as well, and the yoke pullers and throttle pushers up front, of course.  SCAR missions were by no means uniquely a single-seat effort. That will leave Lord Flashheart and his fellow heroes plenty of time for tea and discussing medals after their CAP patrols against ISIL MiGs...woof, woof!

 

[Quirky]

New aircraft and equipment? The RCAF has better things to worry about, like leather flight jackets and new rank insignia.

 

[a_majoor]

If the hunt against ISIL is anything like the hunt against Ghadaffi, not only will ACSOs be in the thick of things, but probably a few AESOPs as well, and the yoke pullers and throttle pushers up front, of course.  SCAR missions were by no means uniquely a single-seat effort. That will leave Lord Flashheart and his fellow heroes plenty of time for tea and discussing medals after their CAP patrols against ISIL MiGs...woof, woof!

Depending on how things work out, the CF-35 could be equipped with the LO "enclosed weapons pod" developed for the "Super-Duper" Hornet, which can allow the aircraft to carry 2500 lbs of external stores without upping the radar signature. The enclosed pod should also reduce drag when carrying weapons, which is also good news, since most performance figures you see in press releases are when the aircraft is "clean" and not carrying external stores.

The EWP also enhances the idea of a CF-35 (or any other aircraft so equipped) as a bomb truck, since the pods can be loaded and ready while the airframe is out on a mission, for faster turnarounds.

 

[WingsofFury]

Depending on how things work out, the CF-35 could be equipped with the LO "enclosed weapons pod" developed for the "Super-Duper" Hornet, which can allow the aircraft to carry 2500 lbs of external stores without upping the radar signature. The enclosed pod should also reduce drag when carrying weapons, which is also good news, since most performance figures you see in press releases are when the aircraft is "clean" and not carrying external stores.

The EWP also enhances the idea of a CF-35 (or any other aircraft so equipped) as a bomb truck, since the pods can be loaded and ready while the airframe is out on a mission, for faster turnarounds.

I appreciate that you're a legend and I respect your views; I just happen to think this one is a non starter. The pod itself would be on a centreline for the Hornet; this space is already occupied by the -35's internal weapons bay.

Plus I don't think that Boeing would play nice and share tech with Lockheed Martin...but I could be wrong. 

Either way...I'd say that an F-15 of either Strike Eagle variant that I mentioned above would give the F-35 a run for its money.  I just don't see Boeing changing what it's offering and, while I understand that they want to keep the Super Hornet line open longer, by doing so they are really doing themselves a disservice.

What I'd like to see is an honest balls to the wall competition between a Strike Eagle and an F-35.  I know what the differences on paper are...but I'd like to see an eval based on quantified facts rather than just speculation.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They had the luxury of having a second airframe to bridge the gap, while the SH crews developped their chemestry, which we do not.

Hence the reason for dual fleets, because I will bet a case of beer that the fleet will be grounded at least twice for a period of time in first 8 years to fix newly discovered issues.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Managing a single EW pod in a training environment and employing weapons systems in a shooting war are two extremely different things.  The OTU would not solve the issue in the short to medium term as the OTU doesn't give experience per se.  It teaches basics.

As far as not wanting to share a cockpit, it's not a matter of being self-centered or not.  In the last 30+ years, Canadian fighter pilots flew by themselve in their cockpit.  As a result, they are the masters of their own destiny. This is a major shift in philosophy when you add a second body in their cockpit and it would take quite a while to get an efficient working chemistry going. You can't "order them" to fly together expecting them to be the A-Team right away: it'll take years.  In that sense, yes, it is a major obstacle in getting a 2-seat fighter.

PuckChaser: it's not as simple as that, unfortunately...

That is patently wrong. One O Wonders and Scope Wizards did not take years to gel. Proper training and technique were all that was required for them to work as a team. Scope Wizards went to the airframe they were ordered to and mostly operated as well with one Wonder as they did with another. One-O-Wonders also had no problem with the interchangeability. Years to become a team? Horsehockey.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I am not talking about the personnal level but rather, community level.  The Voodoo replaced the Canuck which employed both a pilot and a RIO, so those relationships were already eatablished at the community level.  Not to mention that the jobs in today's age are much less clear cut than they were 50 years ago.  I can guarantee that we would see frictions and problems in the first couple of years that would hinder effectiveness.  A fighter pilot community that is used to manage and employ all his aircraft's sensors by themselve would have a hard time adapting to sharing the workload, not because of self-centricity, but rather out of pure muscle memory and habbit pattern.

Same with the ACSOs.  Short of flying in the back seat of an Alphajet, operating a single system, we don't have any of them flying in fast jets.  They would now have to employ offensive and defensive weapons systems in a much more complex environment them they are used to.  Other communities sorta do this, but I am sure anybody who has flown in a fighter jet can attest, it's just not the same thing in a physically restrictive environment at 800 knots.  Developping that crew phylosophy is going to take a while if you want them to be effective.

Would I want somebody helping me out from the backseat?  I am actually personally indiferent to it.  I know I can do the job effectively by myself, but the extra bodies in the tactical units would be welcome and task sharing has the potential to be a force multiplier, if done properly.

 

[Baz]

But we can't put ACSOs there; CFAWC has told us, in an official document no less, that we're a dying trade; apparently endorsed by the current RCAF leadership.

Replaced by AWCs (oe whatever they're called now) and Int apparently; I'm told that's how modern ISR works...

 

[Good2Golf]

So ACSOs only go in the back of Alpha Jets, which as Max noted earlier in another thread, is the only cost effective means of maintaining linkages with the close air support recipients, the Army -- ACSO's are a better tie to the user than very expensive fighter pilots...check.

Fighter pilots may not have "Leading Change" on their PERs so it might appear, so it's okay for fighter pilots to guarantee friction for years to come...check.

ACSOs having to employ offensive and defensive weapon systems, hmmm....like...some kind of active, semi-active or mono-statically passively guided weapon armed with 100 lbs of PBXN designed to destroy massive mobile weapon systems, for example?  Or say a defensive system using radar warning receivers, missile approach warning receivers and armed with multi-spectral decoys?  Check, and check.

Hopefully the highly automated F-35 will actually lets its pilot do more than some fighter pilots seem willing to consider other trained air warriors to do...

:not-again:

G2G

 

[SupersonicMax]

G2G, I did specify in a fast jet and did allude to the fact they do this in other platforms...  Please son't make me say things I did not. Not saying it's an impossible feat, but rather pointing some issues...  If you believe there would not be friction and issues that would take time to solve, you are either drinking cool aid or can't see some of the realities in those communities...