New Fighters

[jollyjacktar]

Now you're talking.  Easy A++

Now back to topic with a dumb question from a non Zoomie.  Say if the F-35 is just too damn expensive or long in procurement.  Why not replace our current fleet with the Super Hornet?  They are still being made are they not, current and upgraded to meet todays needs?  Would we not get a decent bang for the buck and shut down the motormouths like Iggy at the same time.?

 

[OldSolduer]

I recommend "Popular Music of the 70's". Should be an easy 'A' for the ...older crowd. 

Don't you start you whipper snapper!! (cackle)  ;D

I'm holding out for Political Science. >

 

[PuckChaser]

That would be sole-sourcing a contract to Boeing, which they didn't want all along supposedly. What the Liberals want is another multimillion dollar sourcing competition which many companies won't bid on because we aren't going to require the amount of aircraft that will make it worth their time.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yes, that would not do.  Then again, they were the one's who ordered the 18's originally back in Trudeau's time so surely they could not balk too hard at getting the latest version. 

But, as I asked as a non SME, would the Super Hornets such as the RAAF are getting be a suitable fallback choice of ride?

 

[aesop081]

would the Super Hornets such as the RAAF are getting be a suitable fallback choice of ride?

The RAAF super Hornets were bought as an interim capability to bridge the gap between the retirement of the F-111 and the (delayed) arrival of the F-35. The desired end0state for the RAAF is the F-35, not the Super Hornet.

 

[FoverF]

If you ever have a couple hours to kill check this out.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kNszWU7hTw">Nova JSF Battle of the X Planes</a>
... You really see that they picked the best possible option.

To be quite honest, I have always thought that they chose the wrong plane.

 

[infantryian]

Even after all of the problems that the Boeing plane had with leaking parts and air to air refueling? Not to mention the plane that was built did not meet the maneuverability requirement. But I am not a pilot, and who knows what I could be missing.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

They also said that they'll put on hold all defense procurement until they review (read: hack and slash) all of our requirements so if theres no requirement, there's no purchases.

The requirement for these fighters comes in great part from this little document we signed a while back: The North American Airspace Defense Agreement (NORAD). Put simply, if the Liberals found that having fighters is not a requirement for Canada anymore, then they would have a rude awakening when the American would start to fly over our territory to defend themselves - without asking. As such a scenario would be even worse for the Liberals politically (with the fallout in the population), I have no doubt that their review of national defense will yield a "requirement" in that area.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for front line warships, main battle tanks, heavy guns and MRAP vehicles. Left to the current Liberal thinking, I am afraid we may be heading for a weak coast guard and a territorial army capable of aid to powers ops only.

 

[Zoomie]

It's all an election sham that the Liberals are playing.  They secretly like the deal but have been instructed to decry the program publicly.

 

[a_majoor]

Even after all of the problems that the Boeing plane had with leaking parts and air to air refueling? Not to mention the plane that was built did not meet the maneuverability requirement. But I am not a pilot, and who knows what I could be missing.

Right now the F-35 is suffering similar teething problems, and I can recall horror stories way back during the initial fielding of the F-14/15/16/18 generation of fighters. How well or poorly the F-32 would have done is now a question of alternative history, unless we decide to have the Phantom Works whip up a batch of 65 just for us...

 

[observor 69]

How? The Deadly Question for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Air Power Australia - Australia's Independent Defence Think Tank



How will the intended 2,443 F-35s JSF impose air dominance for the USA and its Allies? That is the question to ask.

Search the Internet for material on the JSF and you will find terabyte after terabyte of articles, pictures, Powerpoint presentations, PDFs, tables and laudatory Blogs. And how much relates to how the JSF will deliver this capability? You will find assertions and statement such as ‘six times better Relative Loss Exchange Ratio than legacy aircraft’ [1], or ‘The operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30-1 for the F-22, 3-1 for the F-35 and 1-1 or less for the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16’[2].

And how will the F-35 JSF perform, not against truly obsolete legacy aircraft like the Su-27SK and the MiG-29, but against modern fighters like the Su-35S? We can answer these questions with a head-to-head analysis of the two aircraft.

Air combat is a complex mix of art, science and engineering. Aircraft performance, weapons performance, networked sensors and pilot skill all contribute to the final Loss Exchange Ratio (LER). The only simplification is that aircraft approach, engage in combat and the survivors depart. This activity can be examined in a ‘kill-chain’ with the following stages: ‘Detect-Identify-Engage-Disengage-Destroy’ (DIED2).

Here is a scenario. In the ‘Blue’ corner, we have a flight of four F-35A JSFs, each armed with four AIM-120D Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles and the 25 mm GD ATP GAU-22/A cannon. No additional weapons or fuel are carried, because these would compromise the JSFs' “low observability” to X-Band radar. In the ‘Red’ corner, we have a flight of four Su-35S, each armed with four RVV-SD Active Radar Seeker BVR Missiles, four RVV-SD Infra-Red (IR) Seeker BVR missiles, two RVV-MD Within Visual Range (WVR) missiles, the 30mm GSh-301 cannon, KNIRTI SAP-518 jammers on the wingtips and a 6,000 litre conformal tank between the engines. Each aircraft has the full range of sensors and countermeasures.

See Table at Link

At the end of the kill-chain, it seems, prima facie, that the Su-35S has all the ‘right stuff’ for air combat, while the F-35 JSF does not. This should come as no surprise, because the design brief for the JSF was that the F-22A would ‘sanitise’ airspace and deliver air dominance, making it safe for the Joint STRIKE Fighter to deliver follow-up strike capabilities.

Now that the F-22A Raptor program is being terminated with insufficient aircraft to deliver air dominance, this role is now being assigned to the F-35 JSF.

Given the intent of the OSD to employ the F-35 Joint Strike fighter as an air dominance fighter, the fundamental and unanswered question is:

HOW?

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html