Canada's Replacement For The CF18 Hovered :

[Indanao]

Here and the USA by 2012:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/

[SuperchargedRS]

The slow version of the Raptor for the US's slow neighbor lol sorry couldnt resist

[flightlead]

I would not be surprised if we see Canada make a last minute order for some Super Hornets. I am no professional when it comes to Canadian "insight" nor am I a military strategist, however the following is worth reading.

1) The F-35 platform is still being flight tested
2) Canada has not "officially" ordered the F-35, just invested into the program

3) Lockheed Martin spokesperson states the following:

"We're hoping that [a decision is] getting close. Their current timeline to actually buy the airplane [leads to] 2016 deliveries, which would mean you'd have to place an order by 2014 and have a down payment in 2013," said Tom Burbage, executive vice-president for F-35 Program Integration at Lockheed Martin, maker of the presumptive front-.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2704337

As for talk of the program dragging behind schedule, Lockheed Martin's Tom Burbage said the F-35 was at worst 13 months delayed, and the first aircraft will be delivered to customers on time.

Amid the controversy, aerospace industry sources said last year that a plan to sole source a Canadian purchase of the JSF -- that is, award a contract to Lockheed Martin without formally entertaining competing proposals -- is no longer on the table.

Competitors to the JSF on the radar include Boeing, maker of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, an advanced cousin to the CF-18, and the Eurofighter consortium, which builds the high-performance, European-made Typhoon. Both manufacturers are growing impatient for Ottawa to announce a competition between bidders, or even just to spell out its requirements for a new fighter. The Swedish Saab Gripen, already in service in a few small countries, is also reportedly under consideration.

The potential competitors want the Department of National Defence to pit the aircraft programs against each other for the contract, as was done during the late 1970s when Canada last chose a fighter.

[Hedley]

I know this could never be done, but to get the best bang for your taxpayer buck ....

Why don't we buy a Sukhoi or MiG and equip it with western avionics and armaments?

Heck, you could probably resell to other countries what resulted (and we used) for a small fraction of a western fighter, all of which are apparently constructed from pure, solid gold.

I know, I was dropped on my head as a small child. I will keep drinking the Kool-aid and accepting the line that anything western is always better than anything russian.

[iflyforpie]

Heck, you could probably resell to other countries what resulted (and we used) for a small fraction of a western fighter, all of which are apparently constructed from pure, solid gold.

Uhmm... no.

Gold was so fourth generation. Platinum is the 4.5 gen precious metal of choice and unobtanium is what 5th gen fighters are made of, (which is why you can't buy the Raptor).

But the Russians, they made a Mach 3 jet out of mild steel...

[Hedley]

Mach 3 jet out of mild steel

I'm so old, I remember when that guy defected to Japan back
in the disco era

Foxbat, right? Victor Belenko? I read his book, decades ago.

Several records still stand, in particular, on 31 August 1977, an Ye-266M flown by MiG OKB Chief Test Pilot Alexander Fedotov, set the recognized absolute altitude record for a jet aircraft under its own power, reaching 37,650 m (123,523.62 ft. or 23.39 miles) at Podmoskovnoye, USSR in zoom climb (absolute altitude is a different record than the sustained altitude in horizontal flight). The aircraft was a MiG-25RB re-engined with the powerful R15BF2-300

Didn't an antique MiG-25 quite recently shoot down an F-18?

What kind of fighter does Canada fly, again?

Feel free to poo-poo east bloc stuff, but if you talk to the F-18
pilot who had his *ss shot off, he probably has more respect for
the antique (1960's-era) MiG-25 than you do.

News flash:

MiG and Sukhoi have come a long, long way since the mid-1960's.

You can probably buy one of these for less than a billion dollars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35BM

[hairdo]

Why don't we buy a Sukhoi or MiG and equip it with western avionics and armaments?

I like this idea. I've always thought that Sukhoi and MiG products were better mechanically speaking than most US products. Just take them and refit with some fancy avionics and BAM! you've got something great! I mean, you could get at least 2 SU-35BM's (A gen 4++ for about $65 mil US) for every one F22! Or 1:1 with the F-35... oh, and still have 20 mil in change. The Typhoon is about the same cost as the F-35 (unless the F35 prices go up), and it's not an Alpha product... Apparently pretty good too! Frankly though, I wouldn't be too surprised to see Super Hornets. Conversion and training would be easier since it's not a completely different aircraft from what's being used now. And it would keep the US happy... I mean, lets be honest. The Canadian government isn't going to buy something non-US aligned...

[Hedley]

Ok, how about for a moment I buy into the western rah-rah flag-waving idiotic rhetoric that MiG and Sukhoi are junk.

If that's the case, why was the F-22 built? What's the opponent? And, if MiG and Sukhoi are such junk, why do we need the F-35? Why not just a production run of new original Hornets? And if MiG and Sukhoi are such junk, do we even need something as capable as a new original Hornet?

Something smells in all this pro-western rhetoric. As a taxpayer, we should be looking to get the most bang for our buck, and that probably includes the best airframe, best engines, and best avionics, regardless of flag-waving rhetoric.

[hairdo]

Ok, how about for a moment I buy into the western rah-rah flag-waving idiotic rhetoric that MiG and Sukhoi are junk.

If that's the case, why was the F-22 built? What's the opponent? And, if MiG and Sukhoi are such junk, why do we need the F-35? Why not just a production run of new original Hornets? And if MiG and Sukhoi are such junk, do we even need something as capable as a new original Hornet?

Something smells in all this pro-western rhetoric. As a taxpayer, we should be looking to get the most bang for our buck, and that probably includes the best airframe, best engines, and best avionics, regardless of flag-waving rhetoric.

?? Did I miss something Hedley, or was that supposed to be directed at me? I think that the MiG and Sukhoi aircraft ARE better than most western aircraft (fighters anyway). Cheaper as well! The only reasons I see them getting the Super Hornet is because it keeps the US happy (something the Canadian government seems to like to do), and it would probably be a quicker conversion. Still though, I kinda like the idea of Canada running SU-35BM's...

[Hedley]

was that supposed to be directed at me?

er. no, not at all.

I think we are in violent agreement

[172PIC]

Eurofighter seems a good way to go - already well established, more than capable, plus it's faster than a Veyron http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NZ9X9A2efA

[hairdo]

was that supposed to be directed at me?

er. no, not at all.

I think we are in violent agreement

K. Thought it might be by the way it was worded. But seriously, why do we need an overpriced american plane? Why not something better? Eurofighter would be a good option. As would a Sukhoi... or a MiG... maybe even a SAAB!

[Hedley]

why do we need an overpriced american plane?

beats me.

[flightlead]

why do we need an overpriced american plane?

beats me.

Let me know when you guys find a 5th Gen fighter for under 50 Million ....

[rigpiggy]

Just ask India about their mission availability rates on their Sukhoi's. I think I would rather the F-15 SE, an F15 with phased array radar, and stealth features. I want something twin engine, long range, with a good weapons loads, not much comparable and at 100M/copy including spares and support, it would probably be the cheapest option.

The Silent Eagle's main addition is the incorporation of a new conformal fuel tank (CFT) under either wing designed to carry weapons internally. "The internal carriage is what is new. The stealth is not," says Brad Jones, F-15 future programs director, adding: "We are not really after the F-22 or F-35 markets" with this new design.


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 2309p1.xml

Mark Bass, F-15 program manager, says the Silent Eagle configuration can be used for first-day strike operations that require stealth. The modified CFTs can be removed, and the original tanks outfitted with weapon pylons can be remated to the aircraft within about 2 hr. to conduct missions in permissive airspace. This configuration would allow use of the standard F-15 weapons suite, including larger antiship missiles.

[AuxBatOn]

Didn't an antique MiG-25 quite recently shoot down an F-18?

If you are referring to the 1991 F/A-18 (flown by LtCdr Scott Speicher) that was shot down over Irak, this is a guess at best. Nobody knows for sure what brought him down. If it was a MiG 25, it would have been (my best guess) with an infrared missile (close range).

Feel free to poo-poo east bloc stuff, but if you talk to the F-18
pilot who had his *ss shot off, he probably has more respect for
the antique (1960's-era) MiG-25 than you do.

He actually is dead. It was a controversial case where his status went from MIA to KIA, back to MIA and finally back to KIA when they found his remains in 2009.

MiG and Sukhoi have come a long, long way since the mid-1960's.

So did Lockheed and Boeing

You can probably buy one of these for less than a billion dollars:

Even if the Russian government considered selling it to us, with all the upgraded avionics and the integration that would need to happen to make it comparable to the Western fighters, it would be the same price, if not more.

There are many advantages for buying American.

First, the support is right here, close to us.
Second, we maintain an essential relationship with our closest ally (both physically and doctrinally)
Third, we can easily interoperate with the Americans. It makes combined operations a little easier.

We need a good multi-role fighter. There is no way we'll get 2 types for 2 missions. Do I think the JSF is the solution? I can't say, I have never flown it or seen the specs on the aircraft (real specs, not what the media tells you). Some of my bosses tell me it's a fantastic aircraft for what we need. They have flown the simulator and seen what it can do. First hand. The only thing I am not a fan of as a pilot is the 1 engine. Other than that, I don't know enough to have an informed opinion.

A note for the original poster: if we get the JSF, we aren't getting the VTOL version.

[Shiny Side Up]

If you are referring to the 1991 F/A-18 (flown by LtCdr Scott Speicher) that was shot down over Irak, this is a guess at best. Nobody knows for sure what brought him down. If it was a MiG 25, it would have been (my best guess) with an infrared missile (close range).

Regardless of the quality of their aircraft, the Russians apparently make good missles. Despite its age, the MiG-25 is the fastest combat aircraft produced and still in service, with possible exception of its similar sibling the MiG-31 "Foxhound". This allows it to still challenge more technologically advanced aircraft simply by taking potshots and being able to control the engagement distance. While most air combat is usually decided on who sees who first (I use "see" loosely given technology's advance from the gun-fighter days) It still also counts if you can go the fastest with the mostest.

[AuxBatOn]

Regardless of the quality of their aircraft, the Russians apparently make good missles.

They have 1 very good missile. The Archer (AA-11). It's an IR missile.

FYI, the Acrid isn't procuded anymore and is only used in a limited way.

Despite its age, the MiG-25 is the fastest combat aircraft produced and still in service, with possible exception of its similar sibling the MiG-31 "Foxhound". This allows it to still challenge more technologically advanced aircraft simply by taking potshots and being able to control the engagement distance.

Taking "potshots" is hardly a tactic. You don't want to waste your missiles randomly. When you take trigger and how many you take for each aircraft is something very much calculated and though out before. It's not a matter of locking up the first thing and shooting.

While most air combat is usually decided on who sees who first (I use "see" loosely given technology's advance from the gun-fighter days) It still also counts if you can go the fastest with the mostest.

If you can see someone very far but have a short arm, you can't shoot the other guy first, unless he has sensors that can't see you inside your weapons' Max Range. You need sensors that are coherent with your armament. What missiles you carry has far more to say in the ending of an engagement than your own radar.

In a war you are not by yourself. There are tens and hundreds of other sensors looking at the sky and sending you the information real time. Even if you are fast, those sensors will most likely see you in a timely manner, in today's environment.

I think it's fair to say that the western sensors, missiles and ergonomy (it's a big one) are superior to Russian's.