Ottawa getting ready to order F-18's replacement ????

[teacher]

Made in Europe, that's what's wrong.

A400 anyone?

[GoinNowhereFast]

The CH-149 Cormorant is European

[moocow]

@teacher: you should say "EADS" that is the problem. These guys have a serious organizational and managerial problem.

With the advance in stealth UCAV, do we need a quasi-stealth jet like the Lightning II? If military planners are unwilling to use manned planes in SEED suppression then the only good thing a stealth plane is good for is air suppression (assuming the other guy have a decent air force). How much AA weapons can the Lightning II carry internally? I recall watching a demo video of the F35 promo video where they just blow pass the enemy and use advanced missiles that can basically flies backward to take out the other guy. If I also remember correctly, even a F-22 got hosed by a T-38 in mock dogfight, don't know if it's luck or insane skills, never the less it can happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXmDj3mFrXQ

[teacher]

Just a smart ass remark

Seriously though it'd be interesting to see an actual fighter competition to see which one would be the best fit whether it be a Super Hornet, F-35 or other. The comments I once heard was that the problem with the Super Hornet is that it's a this generation .5 fighter rather than a next gen example. But than again, what the hell do I know, I fly a dash

[iflyforpie]

The only next generation fighters so far are the F-22 and F-35. The Eurofighter, Rafale, and Super Hornet are all 4.5 gen fighters.

[AuxBatOn]

@teacher: you should say "EADS" that is the problem. These guys have a serious organizational and managerial problem.

With the advance in stealth UCAV, do we need a quasi-stealth jet like the Lightning II? If military planners are unwilling to use manned planes in SEED suppression then the only good thing a stealth plane is good for is air suppression (assuming the other guy have a decent air force). How much AA weapons can the Lightning II carry internally? I recall watching a demo video of the F35 promo video where they just blow pass the enemy and use advanced missiles that can basically flies backward to take out the other guy. If I also remember correctly, even a F-22 got hosed by a T-38 in mock dogfight, don't know if it's luck or insane skills, never the less it can happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXmDj3mFrXQ

I can't really see if the guy he's fighting is actually an F-22. All he says is that he's tally 1 F-22 at 19000. Can't see if he is actually fighting an F-22 earlier (the video is cutting at a few places).

Also, if it is an F-22, it is very possible that the F-22 is limited in what he can and cannot do (ie: Cannot exceed X Alpha, X Gs, etc) This video does not prove anything.

[AuxBatOn]

Just a smart ass remark

Seriously though it'd be interesting to see an actual fighter competition to see which one would be the best fit whether it be a Super Hornet, F-35 or other. The comments I once heard was that the problem with the Super Hornet is that it's a this generation .5 fighter rather than a next gen example. But than again, what the hell do I know, I fly a dash

How would you do that? There is much more to Air-to-Air than dogfighting. What the sensors can and cannot do way before you can see the aircraft with a naked eye is much of the war today.

Can you define Fighter Competition?

[Jercules]

Anyone think this may be the last generation of a manned fighter? Apparently there is an unmanned F35 in the works.

[cyeg66]

Can you define Fighter Competition?

Well, what did our armed forces stage almost thirty years ago to determine? The winner of the competition between the F-16 and the F/A-18 (and to a much smaller degree, the F-20 tigershark), no? As you're well aware, this 'competition' goes much further than simple air-to-air assessment. Range, payload, flexibility, maintenance costs, durability, combat persistence, manoeuverability, and countless other criteria of no less importance play a role in the outcome. Time will tell if the F-35 is worth it. Figure we're already leaning toward it with our small contribution ($735M? correct me if I'm wrong) to the project. Better hurry though, no amount of duct tape will keep those Hornets going for very long. At least they replaced the radios/transmitters at Mirabel during the upgrade. Nothing like hearing no readbacks from a guy going like blazes in the terminal.

[Skyhunter]

Here's an idea. Let the guys who are current fighter pilots decide which is the best for the money, cut through the red tape and go by that one... they might just have a clue.

[AuxBatOn]

Well, what did our armed forces stage almost thirty years ago to determine? The winner of the competition between the F-16 and the F/A-18 (and to a much smaller degree, the F-20 tigershark), no? As you're well aware, this 'competition' goes much further than simple air-to-air assessment. Range, payload, flexibility, maintenance costs, durability, combat persistence, manoeuverability, and countless other criteria of no less importance play a role in the outcome.

Gotcha, I though you meant some sort of exercice.

Time will tell if the F-35 is worth it. Figure we're already leaning toward it with our small contribution ($735M? correct me if I'm wrong) to the project.

That money was put in by Industry Canada. My understanding is that Canada will get industry returns whether or not we buy the F-35.

At least they replaced the radios/transmitters at Mirabel during the upgrade. Nothing like hearing no readbacks from a guy going like blazes in the terminal.

From my point of view, the Hornet is still a superb airplane, especially with all the upgrades to it. It has nothing to envy any Strike Fighter aircraft in the world.

Yes the radios suck but I have yet to see a good radio in a fighter jet. Don't forget that what we use the aircraft for day to day is very different from how you see them from your perspective. While sure, it can fly IFR, it wasn't built to shoot approaches, but to kill and destroy.

[teacher]

Yah "AuxBatOn", I meant a full out competition to see which aircraft best meets the needs of the Air Force. Run each through a gambit of tests and scenarios and see which comes out on top. That's what they did when the Hornet was selected like someone mentioned.

[IFRATC]

I have a very close friend of mine who just got promoted and newly posted to Washington. He is a high time Hornet driver with lots of experience, and has now been tasked to the JSF program. Canadian aerospace has pumped astronomical amounts of money into the program already. Looks like DND is now getting very serious about a new aircraft to replace our fleet of hornets.

IFRATC

[Skyhunter]

Yah "AuxBatOn", I meant a full out competition to see which aircraft best meets the needs of the Air Force. Run each through a gambit of tests and scenarios and see which comes out on top. That's what they did when the Hornet was selected like someone mentioned.

Teacher, that is not was done, they were analysed on paper on their capabilities. Although I can't say much, I will say many of you are misinformed on the cost of the JSF... the SuperHornet is actually more expensive and has less range!

Have to leave it at that.

[teacher]

Thanks for the input to this arm chair general. I know it's all "classified" but it'd be interesting to see the real stats. I'm all for what's best for our armed forces, end of story.

[Nark]

Again;

There are a lot of sexy killing machine's out there, but if you want to replace the Canadian F-18, what mission do you want it to do?

Air intercept, CAS, both? All weather attack?

It's more than what you think is a good airshow performer.

[Shiny Side Up]

Yah "AuxBatOn", I meant a full out competition to see which aircraft best meets the needs of the Air Force. Run each through a gambit of tests and scenarios and see which comes out on top. That's what they did when the Hornet was selected like someone mentioned.

Unlikely that they will be doing that sort of thing again in the near future. Some might remember that there was also a competition between the Lockheed/Martin's F-22 and its competitor, Northrop/Grumman/Boeing's YF-23. Both aircraft being comparable in performance, the choice to go with the F-22 based more upon the possibility of Lockheed going under and the Boeing conglomeration gaining an almost monopoly share of the US defense contracting. The simple point of the matter anymore is that companies can't afford to fail by competing, and governments can't afford to fund such "competitions" anymore when it comes to high ticket items in their defence budgets like modern fighter aircraft. The US has been the slowest to come around to this (ever wonder why there were so many aircraft in inventory during the century series fighters?)

If the US can't fund this sort of competition (with the largest defence budget in the world) then Canada can't either. Currently it seems that there is only one viable choice (the F-22 as of yet not being available to customers outside the US military) when the government makes its decision to phase out the Hornets. Its more a matter of timing and quantity. That is if they choose to keep the manned fighter component of the armed forces.

Unfortunately the former Red Menace hasn't been keeping up.

['effin hippie]

Nark.

As I settle into my general's armchair, I am going to go ahead and assume that Intercept / Air Superiority is the primary mission and some degree of CAS the next on the priority list.

Given those priorities, I would place range, max sustainable speed, sensors and 2 engines at the top of the list.

In support of that priority selection, I would add that history would suggest that it is a lot easier to make a purpose built fighter an effective bomber than a purpose built bomber an effective fighter. Eg. F-15 was a pure fighter for years before the E model came out. Corsair and Mustang during WW2. F-86 Sabre. The Flanker family.
Basically if it's got the power and the performance to be a winning fighter, hanging bombs underneath and getting into a good spot to drop them should be quite achievable.

Sky hunter, every reference for cost of the F-35 vs the F-18 E/F puts the F-35 at about $30M more per copy. This is today, prior to any additional delay or program related cost increases, and without accounting for any reduction in order numbers. Secrecy is fine if you want to discuss performance issues, but to suggest that there is a 'secret' lower price in a government procurement enters the realm of high comedy.

Although the range on internal fuel in the F-35 seems better than I'd thought, and does beat the Superhornet.

ef

[AEROBAT]

If they are serious about building a replacemnt for the F-18 why not contract the Russians? No I am not a closet Commie or anti-American it is just the plane fact that the Russians build the best aircraft, and unfortunatly have some of the best pilots.

When the US started doing war games against the Ukranian and formerly East German air force they realized how outclassed our aircraft were. That prompted the F-22 program.

I know a lot of people will start yapping but I remember what Greg Boyington told me years ago about how he was sucked into flying against the Japanese. He was told they could not see properly and were flying antiquated junk like the Zero. I think the same is happening today.

The F-18 is slower than the plane it replaced. The F-104.

[AuxBatOn]

If they are serious about building a replacemnt for the F-18 why not contract the Russians? No I am not a closet Commie or anti-American it is just the plane fact that the Russians build the best aircraft, and unfortunatly have some of the best pilots.

This is a personnal opinion, but I think there are more involved in buying a new aircraft. First, relationship with our closest ally. Say what you want, the US is our neighbour and we need to keep good relations with them. It includes policital and economic relations.

Second, I doubt the Russian would sell us equipment. Heck, we are still scrambling to intercept them in the Arctic.

Third, I am not totally sure, but I don't think that Russian equipment is NATO compatible. While it may sound stupid, we need to be realistic. If we deploy somewhere, it will not be by ourselve. We need something that will be easily integrated in a multi-national coalition.

Having said that, this is WAY above my pay grade and I'm happy flying whatever they tell me.

The F-18 is slower than the plane it replaced. The F-104.

Is it really your only criteria??

[ahramin]

I think the primary criteria for new airplanes should be something capable of supporting our troops. Fact is we have troops in Afghanistan working without the benefit of our air cover, which is pathetic. If the replacement for the F-18 ends up sitting at home playing games with the Russians instead of providing support for the boots on the ground then it just doesn't matter what we buy.

[AuxBatOn]

I think the primary criteria for new airplanes should be something capable of supporting our troops. Fact is we have troops in Afghanistan working without the benefit of our air cover, which is pathetic. If the replacement for the F-18 ends up sitting at home playing games with the Russians instead of providing support for the boots on the ground then it just doesn't matter what we buy.

Actually they do have air cover. Afghanistan is a NATO-led mission. There is a pool of aircraft that the coalition uses. Whoever needs aircraft will get it, provided there are aircraft available. It was discussed before that we should send our Hornets in Afghanistan. But for whatever reason, it was dropped out. But there is still very much a lot of CAS training.

As far as our NORAD commitments, IMO, we will not get out of it. We have to protect Canada's air sovereignty and that means having fighters commited to this task. That means getting 1 fighter that can do it all, just like the Hornet.

[ahramin]

AuxBatOn, I realize that there is air support for our soldiers in Afghanistan. My point is that our airplanes should be providing some of that air support. 2 reasons: I doubt that the NATO chain of command and communication is as reliable as it should be, and I think our squadrons would be far more proficient at CAS if they were actually out there doing it.

Yes, we have to maintain our NORAD commitments, but if that is the most important task we have for one of the most expensive pieces of military hardware in inventory, then in my opinion, who cares what type they are. Arctic sovereignty is great for the politicians, but does it have any positive effect on the people of the world?

[IFRATC]

There is also another major factor to consider. As Britain and our great nation both have vested interest in the JSF program, one major hurtle that has nothing to do with performance, might squash any other NATO commitments.
The US is UNWILLING at this time to give up any technical software/upgrade protection to other NATO countries interested in the purchase. What does this mean? As of right now, any software maintenance or upgrade will only be done by the US. This does not sit well with Canada or Britain. Trust between allied countries is taking a hit over this program. Eahc nation would obviously like the freedom to do its own avionics upgrades in partnership with each other. No one is willing to pay the dollar amounts for this system and have only one country control what software packages are integrated into this aircraft.

IFRATC

[AuxBatOn]

AuxBatOn, I realize that there is air support for our soldiers in Afghanistan. My point is that our airplanes should be providing some of that air support. 2 reasons: I doubt that the NATO chain of command and communication is as reliable as it should be, and I think our squadrons would be far more proficient at CAS if they were actually out there doing it.

If we sent our Hornets there, they would be in the NATO pool and could be used by Canadian troop or other countries' troop.

How can you say the NATO C3 is not reliable? What is your source?