F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

[fish4life]

I guess one question we should be asking is if we want manned or unmanned fighters as well.

[AuxBatOn]

I guess one question we should be asking is if we want manned or unmanned fighters as well.

Because there is a vast choice of unmanned fighters, prototype or operational, to be had....

[teacher]

How accurate is this comparison? Seems they are pretty even on range so why would one claim the SH a better fighter for Canada. Seems to me it'd come down to air to air performance and avionics. I'm far from an expert and fully admit that.

[Rockie]

Seems they are pretty even on range so why would one claim the SH a better fighter for Canada. Seems to me it'd come down to air to air performance and avionics.

The Super Hornet has two spinning things keeping it airborne instead of only one. Do not dismiss that as unimportant because it is regardless of any other magic crap the airplane promises. If the engine quits on an F-35 it's instantly an expensive pile of junk strewn over the arctic or sinking into the Beaufort Sea.

Next is cost. Do not dismiss that as unimportant either because it is for a whole host of reasons.

[frosti]

Seems they are pretty even on range so why would one claim the SH a better fighter for Canada. Seems to me it'd come down to air to air performance and avionics.

The Super Hornet has two spinning things keeping it airborne instead of only one. Do not dismiss that as unimportant because it is regardless of any other magic crap the airplane promises. If the engine quits on an F-35 it's instantly an expensive pile of junk strewn over the arctic or sinking into the Beaufort Sea.

Next is cost. Do not dismiss that as unimportant either because it is for a whole host of reasons.

The minute amount of time we spend flying in the arctic does not justify buying a 80's era aircraft because it has, again, two 80's era engines. Two engines does not mean its less likely to crash, it means there is twice the risk of a failure happening. F16s have been flying in the arctic for decades now and no one is rushing to replace them with a twin-engine fighter because its more safe. I still wait for this mystical, cheaper, Super Hornet.

[teacher]

Next is cost. Do not dismiss that as unimportant either because it is for a whole host of reasons.

The Danes claim the F35 will be cheaper than the Super Hornet. Especially in the long run.

The single engine argument IMHO is a mute point as today's technology IS better and more reliable and Frosti is right, you don't see showers of single engine airplanes falling form the sky. I flew a PC12 for years from coast to coast, day and night North and South and not a peep or hiccup from the engine. I know it's not the same but with today's trend monitoring of engines AMEs know something is up WAY before the pilot does.

[niss]

The Super Hornet has two spinning things keeping it airborne instead of only one.

If we approached this differently would a single engine be such a drawback? I understand that the Hornet Squadrons are in Baggotville and Coldlake, and are responsible for covering the whole country, so twin-engine make sense given how few assets the RCAF has vs the area it covers.

If there were were additional squadrons in the arctic (with local SAR assets), reducing their coverage would a single engine fighter be such a draw back?

[Rockie]

F-16's in the Arctic are aggressors. They don't stray far from home and the US has more SAR assets in a single hanger at Fairbanks than we do in our whole country (only a small exaggeration). It cannot - in any way - be compared to sovereignty protection in Canada.

Yes, engines are more reliable. Engines quit for reasons external to themselves however, I know because it happened to me. And even though transport category engines are orders of magnitude more reliable than any fighter engine, ETOPS procedures and requirements are predicated on one of them quitting or becoming unusable. And guess what - they quit sometimes. Yes, single engine matters no matter what it is. Besides losing a pilot we'd be losing an obscenely expensive asset that will never be replaced for want of one more fan.

As for cost comparisons I am not advocating the SH, but it would take creative accounting indeed to make it cheaper than the F35 which remains the most expensive and problematic weapon program in US history. As well, numbers are a force multiplier in its own right and we can't afford enough of them to be effective anyway. Finally, why do we need them? It's not like any nation NOT flying them will be defenseless.

[Old fella]

Trudeau made a campaign issue in that he would not proceed with the F-35 so this issue is more about politics. Every think tank/military consultant/ former generals on either side can make a case for their product and against the other, not to mention all the carrot - tops here on this site If Trudeau doesn't proceed with this acquisition, the general population won't hold it against him and it will not be an issue come 2019........which is where he has his eyes focused

Anyway keep going with the rants, tis certainly interesting readings

By your leave

[tailgunner]

Rockie,
the F35's integration into the information web, makes it a bigger force multiplier than sheer numbers. This aircraft can use ANY allied radar information as its own.....it can see what an Aegis destroyer is painting, or it can use what an AWACS is seeing. THAT is a force multiplier! It can also share radar and info with each member in its flight. A flights of 4 F35's can reportedly cover a huge swath of airspace that other fighters, including the F22cannot.

[Rockie]

It can't make the airplane be in two places at once or put more weapons in its bays. And how much of this wonderful technology is north of Inuvik in our airspace? Plus are the F35's the only airplane that has this technology? I hope not or they're going to desperately need all the force multipliers they can get.

[7ECA]

And as has been learned in every single war fought, that wonder technology that was invented, rarely ever works as expected if at all.

Wars have a way of levelling the playing field, regardless of what the generals or military-industrial complex has to say about it.

[AuxBatOn]

7ECA,

Look at the Gulf War. New, unproven technologies worked as advertised then (GPS, Stealth, Laser Guided Weapons, amongst many other things...)

[7ECA]

Using the Gulf War as a rubric for all future wars is a mistake, and it is a mistake that is going to cost the West dearly when the next big war kicks off. And I don't mean another war were a Western nation is fighting a foe that operates on the scale of tribal warriors like the Taliban.

As far as I am concerned, the lessons to be taken from the Gulf War are that training pays dividends, the US military at the time was extremely well trained, and were all volunteers. The Iraqis on the other hand, were an army of poorly trained, -led, and -motivated group of conscripts. It was training, not equipment, that allowed the coalition troops to wrap things up as quickly as they did.

[AuxBatOn]

I'd argue it was a combinaison of well trained, motivated soldiers and airmen, and superior technology thay won the war. Without Stealth to take out the key leadership infrastructure and C2 links in probably the most defended city in the world, without LGB to minimize the number of sorties required to achieve the desired effect and the GPS to allow ground troops to navigate in the open desert versus roads (where Iraqi troops were waiting for American troops), the war would have either been very long or a draw.

My point is that war is not an equalizer when it comes to technology. Non-combat tested techlogy allowed the US to have the upper hand in a conflict that initially looked like was going to be a fair fight.

The Joint Forces Air Component Commander at the time (LGen Charles Horner) agrees with me. Read his book.

[schnitzel2k3]

Sorry this was written a couple days ago, but looks like it didn't go through.

Excuse me, Dassault Rafael. Same company, different line.

Realize I'm an outsider, like most of us looking in, with the most reasonable amount of research and interest. So having said that...and strictly IMO;

Current roles as a civilian looking in are ground attack, close quarter combat troop support and domestic interception. A lot of time is spent north of 60, keeping the Russians on their side of the melting ice cap.

Future roles would likely encompass all the above plus a potential need for air-to-air combat (I think the official term is airborne defense). If we really wanted to talk about future fights, we should really be talking about unmanned aerial combat.

I'd say a realistic list of options of current production late 4th gen fighters, developed by our allies that match the above roles, is short. I don't see Canada buying from China, India or Russia, and single engine IMO doesn't cover our pilots for the Arctic or ferries to and from the CZ. I can think of 2 off the top of my head...

- Eurofighter Typhoon €90+m
- F/A-18E 65m+$

I know Being offered to replace our C airframes with D's 1 to 1 but with maintenance going to Boeing for the life of the airframe.

I don't see Canada buying a 5th generation fighter due to timing and cost, especially when up until this point, the F-35, our only realistic shot at 5th gen has failed to exceed 4th generation specs, as it began development midway through the 4th generation. I think China is making a copy of it anyways to be released in 2017.

Just today, Lockheed Martin gave an ultimatum to Canada, stick with the program, at unknown costs, or we'll pull 10 Billion over 10 years in high tech business from your economy...

Lockheed Martin warns it will pull $825M in F-35 contracts if Canada buys another jet
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stealth ... -1.3629403

S.

[tailgunner]

What 4th generation specs does the F35 not meet? If you are referring to the "fly off "between a clean F16 and the F35 you are being misinformed. The fly off was purely an envelope expanding test flight. It has no bearing on the future effectiveness of the F35. The F35 was not using any, or very few of its advanced sensors, it was an early Lot jet, and the pilot was NOT using the advanced new designed helmet. It was just a test flight. However, the F35 detractors ran with the flight report and took nearly all of it out of context.
Every aircraft has differing advantages and disadvantages. If you want the security of a twin engine SH, you give up speed, integration, range, interoperability, development, etc. Your pilots will be safe transiting to the combat area in a SH, and then be killed, or neutralized once they arrive.
Cheers.

[frosti]

I welcome our new Super Hornets, it should make our fighters irrelevant for the next 30 years. We should be kicked out of NATO.

[7ECA]

I welcome our new Super Hornets, it should make our fighters irrelevant for the next 30 years. We should be kicked out of NATO.

The sky is falling!

Hang on a minute, doesn't that mean that the USAF is entirely irrelevant as well? Seeing as how they only have a small number of JSF's running these days? Sheit, for such a big air force, I'm surprised they are useless...

[schnitzel2k3]

Interesting views.

This far along in the testing and they are still sand bagging themselves? With all the criticism and delays, if they were holding back, maybe it's time to stop messing around. But, I really don't think that's the case.

F-16 Basics - M2.0, 1740nm internal range, on 6000lbs of fuel and 22000lbs payload.
http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/product ... tions.html

SH Basics - M1.8, 1275nm internal range, on 8000 lbs, and 18000lbs payload.

Eurofighter Basics - M2.0, 1800nm internal range, on 11000lbs, and 16000lbs payload. Pretty sure it also falls into the super maneuver category as well.

Those were both wiki references. Most other sources agreed with the above.

F-35 Basics - M1.6, 1200nm range, on 18000+ lbs of fuel(?), 18000lbs payload.

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... riants.gif

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ig-381683/

Hey I'll give you this, the avionics are better, I think the HUD helmet alone is some ridiculous amount of money (300+). At least we'd be able to brag about that.

The Danish replacing their aging F-16s with F-35s makes sense. The F-18 for them is on par with us switching to the F-35.

I think for how we utilize our jets, the SH makes a lot of sense. We can have it now, and in 20 or 30 years we can rehash our need for a more capable jet.

Its a similar platform to what our Air Force currently operates, so one would think upgrade training for both pilots and mechanics would be minimal. Boeing already supports our economy with various projects, I doubt there would be much more coming down the pipe for now. The old numbers per jet were between 60-80M per jet. The F-35, with cost overruns were reported exceeding 110M per jet (I think that was 2014), there was lots of media attention because the price nearly doubled from initial estimates.

The U.S Navy and Australia's AF seem to both enjoy the SH and the role it fills.

What stats did the F-35 beat by the way? I sure as hell can't find any. Last I heard, dogfighting wise, the F-35 would have trouble against 3rd generation MIGs. Thank God it's "stealth".

S.

[AuxBatOn]

Helmet: we currently fly with the JHMCS which is worth north of 100K.

Speed: The Hornet spec is M2.0. I have never flown past M1.2 operationally partly due to the fact that we need to hang a bunch of stuff off of the wings to make it tactically relevant. You'll be better off with a JSF if you want to fly fast. The normal loadout for an opposed mission is all internal.

US Navy and RAAF: they both use it as a stop gap between an older platform (legacy Hornets for the Navy and F-111 for the RAAF) until the JSF fills the squadrons. I'd agree if it was what we would be doing.

Reassessment in 30 years: what we buy now, we keep for 40-50 years.

I have flown both the Legacy Hornet (as my primary platform) and the Super Hornet and I can tell you from experience, other than the APG-79, we do not gain anything buying the Super and in some respects, we go back in time...

[schnitzel2k3]

Sweet Aux. Thank you for the frontline update.

So you would say lots of guys and gals up here are really looking forward to the JSF?

If they have an open competition, which it doesn't sound like they are doing anymore, what would you like to see in the stable?

S.

[BingoFuel]

Speaking with a very recently retired USMC F-18 driver he expressed how amazing the F-35 is...How it's "leaps and bounds" beyond any upgraded 4th generation fighter. He had no affiliations with LM or any stake in the JSF program.

As a staunch supporter of purchasing the latest SHornet version he almost swayed my opinion...then he says very bluntly to me "I'm really not sure why you guys (Canadians) want or need it though. For what you guys would use it for it's not worth the money and I'd be pretty darn hesitant to operate it too far away from some serious infrastructure and ground support (ie. Arctic or North of 60)".

Granted he's talking about the STOVL version that the USMC will use but still...

I genuinely hope that the RCAF pilots and commanders have the biggest say in what will happen with this purchase. Knowing history I have my doubts that will come to fruition. For now I'm still on the side of purchasing Super Hornets, or Rafales because of the dual-engines and ruggedness. But if the airforce deems it safe, and the price is right, sure get the F-35.

Liberal/Conservative/NDP/Tea Party...Just get something FFS, Hold a competition...make a decision.

[Rockie]

I genuinely hope that the RCAF pilots and commanders have the biggest say in what will happen with this purchase. Knowing history I have my doubts that will come to fruition.

There's a reason for that though - they don't have to pay for it nor are they the ones who determine what their tasks will be. That's the government's responsibility and ultimately ours as voting citizens. It's the same for every government department.

It is also entirely irrelevant to the decision making process if individual pilots are willing to risk single engine Ops in the high Arctic. The jet doesn't belong to them, and their opinion is certain to change anyway the moment they think that engine is going south on them.

[tailgunner]

Rockie,
You are correct in that the F35 cannot be in two places at once. No aircraft can. But the F35 will be in the CORRECTplace at the correct time. The F35 can download the radar pictures gathered from NORAD's over the horizon radars, thus allowing the pilots a complete view of what, where, and how many targets are approaching.....that is way better than a flight of 4 SH burning holes in the sky with their own radars....
Cheers.