F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[SupersonicMax]

Hawks don't have radar or can't carry medium range weapons last time I strapped in.  That's a key point in having an efficient intercepter.  Plus, it's fairly slow at high altitudes and it can't get there fast.

How can you say the Superhornet will last until 2030?  What will break between now and then??

Yup, they know.  But the government aren't made of pilots.  Again, I absolutely don't care what YOU think about 1 vs 2 engines, you're not the one that will be flying it over Northern Canada...  And I'd like to argue that the ejection seat is the most reliable piece of kit in that airplane. However, if you succesfully eject up north un -40 Weather, I have great doubts you may be able to survive very long. Engine failure occurs, no matter what you say or think.  Have you heard about the Hawk that threw a blade back in April?  Maintenance was done in accordance to the books, the engine was flown in accordance to the book.  Just manufacturing defects.  What about the Hornet that trew a whole turbine disk last year?? As long as you have an engine designed by humans, manufactured (in whole or in parts) by humans, maintained by humans and flown by humans, it will be bound to break.

Why is the Super Hornet outdated again?  It can do everything we need it to do.  What does the JSF can do that we so need it to do compared to the Super Hornet?  Maybe you need to look again.  There are other choices out there.  The most logical one IMHO is the Super Hornet. 

 

[ArmyRick]

From my understanding, Superhornets are whole new aircraft, not just simply re-built Hornets, is that correct? If that is the case, then maybe it has a whole life potential a head of it?

I really know AFV alot better than AC so bear with my ignorance.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Just food for your thoughts, NINJA:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/cf/CF188720-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/cf/CF188933-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/cf/CF188733-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/ct/CT155215-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/ct/CT155202-eng.asp

There are more occurences that are just not on the website.  If you have access to a FS computer, I suggest you try to read about that... 

 

[belka]

Just food for your thoughts, NINJA:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/cf/CF188720-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/cf/CF188933-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/cf/CF188733-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/ct/CT155215-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/ct/CT155202-eng.asp

There are more occurences that are just not on the website.  If you have access to a FS computer, I suggest you try to read about that... 

Looks like someone might have gotten hung on a few of those occurrences, more so 733. Don't see how you could miss reinstalling a boroscope plug considering you need at least two sets of eyes before you even close the boroscope panel. I guess these things happen.

While I may agree that the Superbug might be a better, and cheaper alternative to the F-35, regardless of the two engine agreement, I don't think the government will consider this. I think they forget that if a F-35 purchase is to be approved, they won't have anywhere to put them. The current hangars barely fit all our sqn's hornets and that's only possible to the windfold system, the JSF doesn't have this. The only reason why dislike the SuperHornet is due to it's terrible Avionics serviceability. It's not called the Superbug for nothing. I just hope the right people make the right choice for our next gen fighter. The only other two-engined alternative to the E/F is the Raptor. While it's costs are extremely high it's a far superior platform to anything else in the sky. It may not be available to export just yet, but who knows what might happen in 5 years.

EDIT: The F-35C does have a wingfold system.

 

[thunderchild]

Our only other options in the twin engine category are the Rafale and the EJ-2000 typhoon.  From what I've been reading in previous posts I think it's safe to say that any thing except the Rafale is preferred.  So how about the eurofighter typhoon? ideas?

 

[DevoBab]

Since operating two different fighters isn't realistic (one for home defence, the other in MUCH smaller numbers for expeditionary), it seems to me that the Eurofighter Typhoon would be a better buy.
Despite already having dedicated money to R&D on the JSF, Canadian companies were able to bid on the project which was likely the primary goal to begin with since we were a third tier partner.
So why not go the more cost effective route, while still getting a fairly comparable plane. Assuming what I read was true, Saudi Arabia is getting 72 Typhoons for approx. 6.4 billion. Now Harper lowered the original planned number of new fighters to 65, so with some doing we could likely get that number for close to $5 billion. From what I understand the Typhoon is a great fighter and they attempted to have it compete with the Raptor (although it didn't work out that well). The only thing it lacks in comparison to the JSF is range.
Just my two cents.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Should we not as the second largest nation on the planet factor range into any aircraft buy?

 

[DevoBab]

Absolutely. It's certainly not a perfect decision, but if the cost of the JSF gets to be too rich for our blood so to speak, the Typhoon seems to be a pretty good option. I'm saying this as a complete outsider, so I am completely willing to get shot down (no pun intended). I guess my response boils down to a question because I honestly don't know. How often does long range come in to play when flying a fighter? (I'm assuming these planes will mostly be used for Canadian defence rather than being sent overseas a previous post stated that sending fighters overseas is extremely expensive).

The Hornets have a states range of over 3,000 km. The JSF has a stated range of just over 2,000 km. The Typhoon has a measly 1,300 km. If range is a huge factor, does that mean no matter what plane we go with, we'll be losing range, and if so how much will that affect operations?

 

[SupersonicMax]

EDIT: The F-35C does have a wingfold system.

I agree the Raptor would be a nice platform.  However if they actually decide to make and export version, it would be serverly downgraded from the "real" Raptor.  Why pay the extra money for the export, when you won't even be able to benefit from what it was supposed to bring?  Again, I think the Super Hornet would be CHEAPER and we could get more.  I don't think the extra how ever many dollars would be worth the "dumbed down" F-22.

The F-35C may have a wingfold system, but it doesn't have a gun.  Not required anymore you'll say?  Read in history, see what happenned in Vietnam.

Range is important for a fighter, especially when defending Canada.  We have a LARGE territory and the North doesn't have bases every 200 nm like in the States.  The Eurofighter was, I think, designed for the typical small european country.

Anyways, these are my 250 cents

 

[DevoBab]

That all makes sense, thank you.

So with such a huge country with limited airbases, would having two engines not be extremely important, along with range? If that is the case, the SUpoer Hornet seems to have all of those things, with a smaller price tag.

 

[belka]

I don't think the extra how ever many dollars would be worth the "dumbed down" F-22.

I somehow doubt that we'll see a "dumbed down" version seeing how we are the US's greatest ally and share a vast airspace to the north. The only thing I can see the US withholding are some of the powerful, and highly secretive, Radar systems they have inside.

As far as the F-35, I think it's becoming a case of too little return for too much money. The fact that the price is approaching that of the F-22, an aircraft that outperforms it by a huge margin in almost every significant measure of performance is ridiculous. Also, there is no evidence that the F-35 will be able to hang with 4th generation Russian fighters in the case of BVR engagements and aerial combat. All the technical specs point to is that in air to air combat it will only maintain F-16C performance levels, which is 32 year old platform.

The simple fact is, if you want two engines and the most modern systems money can buy, the Raptor is the clear choice. It wouldn't suprise me to see the US approve foreign F-22 sales in the near future. With the way things are going now for the US economy, it wouldn't hurt to bring in virgin money into their system. I see no reason why the US won't sell the F-22 to Japan and Australia for example. The more are built, the lower the costs of the total program will be and a greater chance that we might see a small fleet up here. This is probably all just a pipe dream anyways.

 

[thunderchild]

yea the price would come down. I've read in Jane's that if 100 more raptors could be sold that the flyaway price should be about $99 million US per aircraft. But from what I've read here and on other sites there is some concern that the f-22 is very limited in its ground attack capabilities. If this is true then even if the f-22 kicks butt  in the air( and there is no argument about this) we will still need a second aircraft dedicated to ground support. or am I way out in right Field.

 

[belka]

yea the price would come down. I've read in Jane's that if 100 more raptors could be sold that the flyaway price should be about $99 million US per aircraft. But from what I've read here and on other sites there is some concern that the f-22 is very limited in its ground attack capabilities. If this is true then even if the f-22 kicks butt  in the air( and there is no argument about this) we will still need a second aircraft dedicated to ground support. or am I way out in right Field.

I don't see a need for a ground attack fighter when the UAV's can do the job just as well if not better for alot less money.

I also would like to know in what performance measure, other than stealth, would the F-35 outperform an F-16E with an AESA radar?

 

[Loachman]

I don't see a need for a ground attack fighter when the UAV's can do the job just as well if not better for alot less money.

I do not know where you got that idea, but it is incorrect.

They have their strengths, but also their shortcomings.

 

[Loachman]

I can't speak for every helo pilot, but given the complexity of a helicopter, adding an even more complex gearbox to the mix is not what I wanted and I know a lot of other helo pilots feel the same way.

I was never happier than when I had one engine.

 

[thunderchild]

A uav/ ucav have their place I'd rather send them in to punch holes into a first class air defence, but they are man made machines how secure are they from hacking?(I have no Idea on this and any information would welcome) Besides how much better than a light fighter in price and capability are they really? I've read from several web sites including the federation of American scientist which place the price of the french neuron at $35 million US per UCAV not including support command and control and developmen costs etc.  UAV/UCAV area is new to me, if I'm wrong in my conclusions I know you'll tell me.

 

[Loachman]

No UAV to date has any specialized capability for defeating AD systems.

No information on susceptibility to jamming or other interference will be forthcoming.

They have no better capability than a light fighter, only a different capability.

Most are unarmed, and those that can be armed carry light loads, even Reaper. They also operate singly, therefore have no combined effect.

Think of the armed ones as airborne snipers, lurking, observing target areas for extended periods, and firing a well-aimed shot at a high-value target.

Cost?

Sperwer is the most expensive airframe in the whole CF to operate, when all factors are taken into account.

 

[FoverF]

The Super Hornet was designed to do pretty much two things:

1) to be cheap enough to allow the USN to keep 12 supercarriers. 
2) smell like an upgrade of an existing aircraft, in order to fly under the political radar.

It does both of these, and they are at the same time its` greatest strengths and weaknesses.

The SH was the cheapest and least capable airframe the USN could get to barely fill their fast jet needs. It has 'less than stunning' performance, and was forced to be a decidedly 4th generation (4.5 at best), by virtue of trying to pass itself off as just another model of the Hornet.

But we are a country with a decidedly limited budget for big-ticket defence items, so an aircraft that was designed from the outset to be the cheapest practical Hornet replacement is an attractive proposition. And we're a country who's government is liable to turn around and throw our big-ticket defense items out the window at the drop of a hat. Being able to survive a Liberal majority government is a make-or-break capability for any Hornet replacement program, and the Super Hornet has the edge in that department.

It should also be noted that, IMHO, our unique position as America Jr means that there is absolutely no way any European airframe is going to be more economical for us in the long term than an American one.

 

[belka]

It seems to me like we are "stuck" with the JSF.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The Super Hornet was designed to do pretty much two things:

1) to be cheap enough to allow the USN to keep 12 supercarriers. 
2) smell like an upgrade of an existing aircraft, in order to fly under the political radar.

It does both of these, and they are at the same time its` greatest strengths and weaknesses.

The SH was the cheapest and least capable airframe the USN could get to barely fill their fast jet needs. It has 'less than stunning' performance, and was forced to be a decidedly 4th generation (4.5 at best), by virtue of trying to pass itself off as just another model of the Hornet.

But we are a country with a decidedly limited budget for big-ticket defence items, so an aircraft that was designed from the outset to be the cheapest practical Hornet replacement is an attractive proposition. And we're a country who's government is liable to turn around and throw our big-ticket defense items out the window at the drop of a hat. Being able to survive a Liberal majority government is a make-or-break capability for any Hornet replacement program, and the Super Hornet has the edge in that department.

It should also be noted that, IMHO, our unique position as America Jr means that there is absolutely no way any European airframe is going to be more economical for us in the long term than an American one.

Is this your opinion or fact? If its actual fact how about some sources to back up your points.