Canada: govt 'did not consider alternatives to F-35', then contradicts itself.
71 replies, posted
The Avro Arrow was a fantastic aircraft, but the entire class of aircraft it belonged to are now defunct. High speed air supremacy aircraft for interdiction purposes aren't necessary because the threat is now not from strategic bombers, but rather from ballistic missiles. Such aircraft sacrificed much of their capabilities for speed and range.
This makes the Avro an aircraft designed almost purely for air supremacy purposes (and even then only a specific set of air supremacy cases), where the F-35 and CF-18 are both multirole aircraft.
To make matters worse, the F-35, despite being a multirole aircraft and not a dedicated air supremacy aircraft, would utterly slaughter the Arrow in combat. You can compare all day the performance, but at the end of the day, the F-35 can still close to the no-escape range for sidewinders and ruin your day before you even know what is happening.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38181589]I was responding to the people who said build one from scratch, it wasant a false dilemma. It was a false dilemma generated by yourself. The only aircraft that would be potentially useful as a replacement would be Super hornets, the Eurofighter or Rafael. The Su-35 would also be a ideal purchase, considering Russia and Canada both have about the same geography and climate up north.. but then you have the tactical issue of logistics and the US being right next door making costs low when it comes to transportation. But issues like that could be cut entirely if Canada could build them themselves, similar to India's arrangement. But once again, its a issue with conservatives and the cold war.[/QUOTE]Well shit dude, if you're responding to a specific post or posts, then quote it/them :c
Thought your post was just a general comment.
High tech, high-maintenance fighter jets are utterly pointless for a small military like Canadas. 50% of what modern fight planes do is airshows, and the other 50% is bombing nations that use 1960's soviet hardware. We don't need a godamn trove of $150,000,000 wall-hangers.
The only situation where an F-35 would come in handy is when you're going up against another 1st/2nd world nation with a huge airforce arsenal. But even then the idea of that is totally oxymoronic anyways, because A) Canada is already not equipted for a situation like that, and B) the attrition speed:replacement cost ratio in a modern total war scenario would render modern fighter jets totally useless in combat, because such expensive equiptment [I]cannot[/I] be replaced in an economic manner.
[QUOTE=GunFox;38182284]The Avro Arrow was a fantastic aircraft, but the entire class of aircraft it belonged to are now defunct. High speed air supremacy aircraft for interdiction purposes aren't necessary because the threat is now not from strategic bombers, but rather from ballistic missiles. Such aircraft sacrificed much of their capabilities for speed and range.
This makes the Avro an aircraft designed almost purely for air supremacy purposes (and even then only a specific set of air supremacy cases), where the F-35 and CF-18 are both multirole aircraft.
To make matters worse, the F-35, despite being a multirole aircraft and not a dedicated air supremacy aircraft, would utterly slaughter the Arrow in combat. You can compare all day the performance, but at the end of the day, the F-35 can still close to the no-escape range for sidewinders and ruin your day before you even know what is happening.[/QUOTE]
Its not really a multirole aircraft, it has stealth but its basically a slow precision strike aircraft. It can't dogfight and would loose 95% of the time against something like a Flanker, Rafale. It needs air supremacy aircraft flying with it to be protected. Its radar isn't big either, since its designed to be compact for carrier usage.. yet they're selling it as a all round airforce solution. It can't evade a long range missile because its essentially a flying brick. The only amazing thing on the F-35 is the helmet.
Not to mention the fact it has a rather short range for a country like Canada.
[QUOTE=Nikota;38178943]Make new ones :v:.
In all seriousness though. The F-35's are going to be seen as way too big of an investment to use them in any multi-role function and they'll probably only be used for anti air and deep strikes.
I'd rather risk an 18 million dollar aircraft to deal fire support, than the 400 million dollar stealth one.[/QUOTE]
I doubt they'd use it for anti-air, why not use our F22s?
[QUOTE=Mike42012;38184550]I doubt they'd use it for anti-air, why not use our F22s?[/QUOTE]
Because the US won't sell it to foreign customers.. even Canadians and starting up production would cost loads of cash. We need a good jet that can intercept a escorted bomber and participate in peacekeeping operations. Basically, a multirole fighter, not a multirole strike aircraft. But it also has to be customizable to our needs, especially in the arctic.
[QUOTE=Aperture Adam;38178091][IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img835/3765/avroarrowbyfatthorond4w.jpg[/IMG]
It would be absolutely incredible to see this amazing machine take to the skies again, unfortunately [URL="http://www.globalnews.ca/feds+reject+bid+to+revive+avro+arrow/6442711404/story.html"]Harper already dismissed the option[/URL]...[/QUOTE]
that image almost brought a tear to my eye
What about the JAS-39?
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;38184766]What about the JAS-39?[/QUOTE]
Brand new Gripens would be awesome, but too Swedish.
I feel that purchasing quite a few soviet surplus jets would be far more economical then buying F35's. Replacement parts would not be an issue with them and we could acquire many more of them for the same price as the F35's, but then there is always the political side of it that would make this very unlikley.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38184842]Brand new Gripens would be awesome, but too Swedish.[/QUOTE]
I bet they come flat-packed. Can you imagine putting together a flat-packed fighter jet from IKEA? Impossible.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38184122]Its not really a multirole aircraft, it has stealth but its basically a slow precision strike aircraft. It can't dogfight and would loose 95% of the time against something like a Flanker, Rafale. It needs air supremacy aircraft flying with it to be protected. Its radar isn't big either, since its designed to be compact for carrier usage.. yet they're selling it as a all round airforce solution. It can't evade a long range missile because its essentially a flying brick. The only amazing thing on the F-35 is the helmet.[/QUOTE]
The F-35 is certainly not the fastest jet in the sky, and it doesn't need to be.
The goal is to never have a missile inbound in the first place, but even if you do, the F-35 isn't about to use its maneuverability to dodge it. This is again because it is better to employ excellent countermeasures than rely heavily on aircraft maneuverability.
Then you have the problem of actually finding the F-35 in the first place, which you are unlikely to manage with anything short of ground based RADAR facilities or an airborne early warning aircraft. In each case they would need to be doing their jobs extremely well and would likely be unable to maintain an exact location for long, if at all, of the F-35.
But assuming the ground based stations could get a lock, other aircraft are virtually never networked like the F-35 is. The ground station would not be able to guide the armaments of the attack aircraft to actually hit the F-35. Meanwhile the F-35 knows exactly where that ground station is, has likely known for a good while at that point, and can blow it up basically at will.
Now you have an air supremacy aircraft that may be desperately searching for the F-35 in the hopes that it can spot it before the F-35 gets weapons lock. Of course even if you do manage weapons lock, you are fucked anyways because it can target you in a complete sphere around the aircraft and engage you from any direction. Even assuming you could somehow lock RADAR on him before he spots your giant RADAR signature, he knows immediately where you are the instant you do and can engage you just as easily as you engage him. He has a shitload of fun countermeasures at his disposal coupled with a tiny RADAR and IR signature, drastically increasing the effectiveness of his countermeasures. Your jet has a jet sized signature and generates a shitload of heat. Good luck with that fight.
I'm not saying the F-35 is what every country needs, for most the F-18 and its variants will be far more than sufficient, but you will be dead wrong if you try to come at it with anything short of a 5th generation fighter.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38184842]Brand new Gripens would be awesome, [B]but too Swedish[/B].[/QUOTE]
What even
Worried you'll have to fuel them with Absolut and never get the smell of meatballs out of the cockpit? :v:
[QUOTE=GunFox;38185440]The F-35 is certainly not the fastest jet in the sky, and it doesn't need to be.
The goal is to never have a missile inbound in the first place, but even if you do, the F-35 isn't about to use its maneuverability to dodge it. This is again because it is better to employ excellent countermeasures than rely heavily on aircraft maneuverability.
Then you have the problem of actually finding the F-35 in the first place, which you are unlikely to manage with anything short of ground based RADAR facilities or an airborne early warning aircraft. In each case they would need to be doing their jobs extremely well and would likely be unable to maintain an exact location for long, if at all, of the F-35.
But assuming the ground based stations could get a lock, other aircraft are virtually never networked like the F-35 is. The ground station would not be able to guide the armaments of the attack aircraft to actually hit the F-35. Meanwhile the F-35 knows exactly where that ground station is, has likely known for a good while at that point, and can blow it up basically at will.
Now you have an air supremacy aircraft that may be desperately searching for the F-35 in the hopes that it can spot it before the F-35 gets weapons lock. Of course even if you do manage weapons lock, you are fucked anyways because it can target you in a complete sphere around the aircraft and engage you from any direction. Even assuming you could somehow lock RADAR on him before he spots your giant RADAR signature, he knows immediately where you are the instant you do and can engage you just as easily as you engage him. He has a shitload of fun countermeasures at his disposal coupled with a tiny RADAR and IR signature, drastically increasing the effectiveness of his countermeasures. Your jet has a jet sized signature and generates a shitload of heat. Good luck with that fight.
I'm not saying the F-35 is what every country needs, for most the F-18 and its variants will be far more than sufficient, but you will be dead wrong if you try to come at it with anything short of a 5th generation fighter.[/QUOTE]
But it won't fit our needs since its to slow to be a intercepter, if it came up against a equally stealth aircraft, with a better radar. Take the T-50 for example, its a stealth aircraft but also has a massive AESA radar and IRST equipment to take on other stealth aircraft. The F-35 lacks a good radar because its to small, it was designed to be a VTOL aircraft launched from ships.. it can't really manage anything other then ground attack against a equally stealthy heavy fighter. It isn't a one-off solution, its expensive and it certainly is not future proof. Plus its single engine, what happens if that engine fails during an arctic patrol or a intercept over water? Its a 150mn loss.
Basically, against another fifth generation aircraft it will suck. One of our leading generals even said that it should be called the A-35, since its only good for ground attack and its not good for fighting. By the time we get it, Russia would already be beginning serial production of the T-50.
Basically, this is what happens when you let bureaucrats hear the word "stealth" and "fifth generation".
After looking it up, the F-35 does have AESA radar, and it's supposed the best and newest ones around. It's considered a successor to the F-22's radar.
[editline]25th October 2012[/editline]
It's probably the best thing about the F-35
Thats impossible, they have to fit a massive radar into the nose cone of the fighter jet. It would probably be inferior, its weak and it can't cover the same area due to limitations of the F-35's design. Its IRST system is also supposedly inferior, which would actually be one of the main systems to counter other stealth jets. Its just, not good because it has to be small, be able to take off and land on a aircraft carrier with VTOL capability. Its not meant to fight from my understanding.
It's from the makers of the radar, but it's still a pretty interesting video
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIwAOupjMeM[/media]
[QUOTE=jaredop;38185925]It's from the makers of the radar, but it's still a pretty interesting video
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIwAOupjMeM[/media][/QUOTE]
Thats actually a good video, it explains AESA radars pretty well. The video confirms, that the radar is smaller but also has less range and the inability to see much more passed its nose.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38185791]Thats impossible, they have to fit a massive radar into the nose cone of the fighter jet. It would probably be inferior, its weak and it can't cover the same area due to limitations of the F-35's design. Its IRST system is also supposedly inferior, which would actually be one of the main systems to counter other stealth jets. Its just, not good because it has to be small, be able to take off and land on a aircraft carrier with VTOL capability. Its not meant to fight from my understanding.[/QUOTE]
The F-35 isn't even that small. The PAK-FA may be huge, but all Russian fighters are huge. It's not the size that matters, but how you use it. Also, the only F-35 which has the VTOL/STOVL is the B model. The carrier C model has a greater wing area, therefore lower wing loading and in theory superior maneuverability.
[editline]25th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=laserguided;38185999]Thats actually a good video, it explains AESA radars pretty well. The video confirms, that the radar is smaller but also has less range and the inability to see much more passed its nose.[/QUOTE]
How does the video confirm that at all?
[QUOTE=Apache249;38186067]The F-35 isn't even that small. The PAK-FA may be huge, but all Russian fighters are huge. It's not the size that matters, but how you use it. Also, the only F-35 which has the VTOL/STOVL is the B model. The carrier C model has a greater wing area, therefore lower wing loading and in theory superior maneuverability.[/QUOTE]
The F-22 is a heavy fighter, its meant for air to air combat. The F-35 is universal, its meant for VTOL and others. Its like clothing that sells itself as one size fits all compared to tailor made aircraft.
I mean its a formidable weapon, but not that great if you have nothing to drop bombs on. Even if the wing area is larger its still very small and thus not very maneuverable.
This is a good illustration I found that points of the design limitation of the F-35's radar.
[t]http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Su-35S-vs-JSF-Engage-1.png[/t]
[QUOTE=laserguided;38186165][B]The F-22 is a heavy fighter[/B], its meant for air to air combat. The F-35 is universal, its meant for VTOL and others. Its like clothing that sells itself as one size fits all compared to tailor made aircraft.
I mean its a formidable weapon, but not that great if you have nothing to drop bombs on. Even if the wing area is larger its still very small and thus not very maneuverable.
This is a good illustration I found that points of the design limitation of the F-35's radar.
[t]http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Su-35S-vs-JSF-Engage-1.png[/t][/QUOTE]
No, it's an air superiority fighter...
[editline]25th October 2012[/editline]
what is this, WWII?
[QUOTE=Apache249;38186296]No, it's an air superiority fighter...
[editline]25th October 2012[/editline]
what is this, WWII?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't even matter. Its still a whole different class. A F-35 is certainly not a air superiority fighter, it should definitely not be sold alone as a all in one solution.. afterall it is a Joint [B]Strike[/B] [del]Fighter[/del].
[QUOTE=laserguided;38186381]It doesn't even matter. Its still a whole different class. A F-35 is certainly not a air superiority fighter.[/QUOTE]
Well, no, it does matter, and I didn't mention the F-22, you did.
[QUOTE=Apache249;38186392]Well, no, it does matter, and I didn't mention the F-22, you did.[/QUOTE]
Then you're a bad person.
[QUOTE=Frankiscool!;38177254]Please buy our planes...my dad tests the engines for these.[/QUOTE]
My mom's friend got laid off from Boeing, but luckily he found work for a smaller private plane company.
It sucks more when it's nice people you personally know who get laid off from jobs, rather than people you don't know and it's just "oh, that's a shame...".
[QUOTE=laserguided;38186165]The F-22 is a heavy fighter, its meant for air to air combat. The F-35 is universal, its meant for VTOL and others. Its like clothing that sells itself as one size fits all compared to tailor made aircraft.
I mean its a formidable weapon, but not that great if you have nothing to drop bombs on. Even if the wing area is larger its still very small and thus not very maneuverable.
This is a good illustration I found that points of the design limitation of the F-35's radar.
[t]http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Su-35S-vs-JSF-Engage-1.png[/t][/QUOTE]
That is the offensive RADAR used for long range guidance of missiles against ground and air targets, bud. The AN/APG-81.
The AN/AAQ-37 electro-optical Distributed Aperture System provides a sphere of detection vs air threats, both missile and aircraft. It is also capable of targeting aircraft.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZddihQ[/media]
Thanks for playing though.
[QUOTE=GunFox;38186642]That is the offensive RADAR used for long range guidance of missiles against ground and air targets, bud. The AN/APG-81.
The AN/AAQ-37 electro-optical Distributed Aperture System provides a sphere of detection vs air threats, both missile and aircraft. It is also capable of targeting aircraft.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZddihQ[/media]
Thanks for playing though.[/QUOTE]
I can't trust Northrop Grunman's PR campaigns after what they did in Canada.
But still, I never said it was not.
I'm going to quote this report,
[QUOTE][URL="http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html"]Infra-Red Search & Track[/URL]: There is a different approach to Infra-Red sensors. The JSF has a superb Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) designed to cover the sphere around the aircraft, but strongly optimised for air-to-ground operations. The Su-35S has a large aperture OLS-35 IRST optimised to scan for other aircraft at long range in its area of interest. DAS is a ‘staring array’ while the OLS-35 is a ‘scanning array’. The difference in detection range is like the difference between a person searching with a naked eye compared with another searching with a telescope. If the telescope is pointed in the right direction, it will get first detection. Add to that the factor that the JSF has the hottest engine in the market, and the IRST of the Su-35S is assessed as a superior aid to air combat. [/QUOTE]
I don't exactly what you're getting at GunFox, you seem to be incredibly bias to anything related to the JSF which is pretty sad considering how Northrop is marketing it, its a ground attack aircraft not a multirole fighter yet they say its a one off solution to the future.
Thanks for playing though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.