thumper76 wrote:

I take the lives seriously. My feelings will get involved when I am getting the impression that I am conversing with someone that appears not to be expressing the same care/concerns. I will assume that you did not fully read my posts to you. What I stated as fact is fact. My hope is that you did not fully read my posts and therefore responded without understanding what I stand for and where I stand. Would make me feel more comfortable thinking Australians stand up for what is right.

Again I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. If you think that my advocacy for a single engine jet comes at the expense of aircrew’s lives then we will have to agree to disagree. Given I know people in the respective communities flight safety is just as personal to me.

thumper76 wrote:

BTW purchasing the super Hornets for Australia's huge unpopulated back yard was a good move in my opinion

The RAAF acquisition of the SH was a great idea but it had nothing to do with the Australian landscape and everything to do with the unsustainable costs of the F-111 and the need for a replacement. The SH requires just 5 rides for a classic Hornet crew member to convert across so it was easier for the RAAF to roll aircrew across to the SH than any other potential interim. The F-35 delays that occurred after that showed it was a great idea for an interim capability.

thumper76 wrote:

Canada is intending to operate one type of fighter. That being so I believe Canada can only go with a twin stealth aircraft. I personally think that Canada should operate two types of witch one would be at least a forth gen twin (f18, rafale or typhoon). And a stealth with full passive interrogation. The twin to patrol the north and the stealth platform for high threat environments /conflicts.

So this is where we can assess some good work done by members of the RCAF. One of the primary issues Canada faces is the economic ability to afford new fighter jets and is one of the reasons the Liberals keep kicking the can down the road.

What we know is that operating two types comes at a greater cost than a single fleet, both in sustainment costs and in acquisition cost and requires more overall aircraft. This is evidenced by the following study,
army.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=120786.0;attach=53025

You will need to cut and paste into your web browser to view. It was available on the RCAF website but was one of the documents taken down when the Liberals placed a gag order on the RCAF talking about fighter capability and requirements.

What it shows is that the RCAF found it not cost effective to run fast jet mixed fleets for a force the size of the RCAF. Quote below,

The previous section showed a mixed fleet of 74 aircraft does not deliver the same capability as a single fleet of 65 aircraft. This section examines known cost considerations in an effort to compare the single and mixed fleets. Despite having a sub-fleet of lower cost aircraft, the loss of economies of scale combined with the cost of duplication may result in a mixed fleet that is more expensive than its single fleet counterpart as was shown in a recent estimate of sustainment costs of future Australian fighter fleets (Ref. R).
Figure 1 presents a fitting analogy that helps one understand that reducing acquisition costs alone is completely insufficient to ensure mixed fleet costs are comparable to those of a single fleet. The studies at Refs. S and T provide evidence that is consistent with the existence of significant fixed operating, support, and infrastructure costs associated with any aircraft fleet. In the case of a mixed fleet, extra costs result from duplication: infrastructure; aircraft maintenance support equipment; operational and maintenance training; supply lines; project management; engineering support; aircraft certification; test and evaluation; storage and management of spare parts, weapons, and expendables; and electronic warfare and systems reprogramming are just some of the many sources of duplication amongst the two sub-fleets.

So mixed fleets are not a great idea when you don’t have either the specific need or the force size to sustain them. The argument is that the Canadian North is not different enough from other operations to require a whole separate type to operate in that region.

thumper76 wrote:

Obviously at the this time the f35 would be the only option for the stealth. I would like to have our platforms integrated to both the west and European systems.... I know now I am asking to much! I would like the flexibility to use armaments from the west or Europe depending on world political climate. Sounds like a stretch but if the aircraft is to be in service till 2060 I don't think we could take less.

When you say integrated with West and European systems what are you referring to specifically? There is already broad integration at the NATO level so am curious what you are referring to.

As for the armaments, it is certainly moving in the right direction. The US is bringing in UAI which will allow a manufacturer to design all the interface systems against a common standard. It will make software integration into a jet nearly seamless and just require the carry and release tests to verify compatibility. Some info on UAI here, http://defense-update.com/products/u/uai.htm
I’d expect UAI to become a NATO standard at some point soon, it makes too much sense for it not to be.

thumper76 wrote:

Might be best for Canada and some other countries to combine heads to build fighter that can be a jack of all trades,, but that is getting political. That being said airbus just called Canada "its first member country outside Europe" but 10+ years is a long time to wait.

Don’t you think Canada has already done that? The JSF program has brought a true multi-role aircraft that is better than the platforms it has been designed to replace. Canada's participation has come with some excellent industrial benefits.

thumper76 wrote:

And a stealth with full passive interrogation.

What do you define full passive interrogation as?

thumper76 wrote:

The twin to patrol the north and the stealth platform for high threat environments /conflicts.

Another great read is the Threat Capability Assessment for Canada’s Fighter Aircraft Capability which was published a few years ago and makes pretty clear the assessed threat environment that the next Canadian fighter jet will operate in. The assessment is available here, http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/threat-capability-assessment-en.page

It seems difficult to separate the two areas into separate fighter jet capability based on what CDI has indicated is the likely threat.

ThePointblank wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

Canada is intending to operate one type of fighter. That being so I believe Canada can only go with a twin stealth aircraft. I personally think that Canada should operate two types of witch one would be at least a forth gen twin (f18, rafale or typhoon). And a stealth with full passive interrogation. The twin to patrol the north and the stealth platform for high threat environments /conflicts.

Canada will only operate one type of fighter because the military can't afford to operate two separate fleets of aircraft doing the same job, and we don't have the manpower to do so.

We barely have the manpower to keep the current fleet running; witness what happened to 433 Squadron at Bagotville a few years back (it was disbanded and the personnel transferred to 425 Squadron to makeup for personnel shortages).

Also, I only think of one CF-18's over the life of the fleet where having two engines was a factor in safely recovering the aircraft; the pilot got really lucky that time and the engine failure occurred really close to an airfield, and he was able to set down quick. Every other time where an engine had a failure on a CF-18, we lost the aircraft.

Also, other countries that operate their fighters in adverse climates where the chance of rescue for a pilot that punched out is extremely slim are more than happy to operate single engined fighters in their operating environments; the Japanese regularly operate their F-2's over the North Pacific Ocean, the Americans operate F-16's up in Alaska, and the Norwegians operate their F-16's over the North Sea and up over the Arctic Circle.

To your knowledge how many times have f18 pilots had to shut down a engine in flight? That Is a choice you don't have with a single. But you have brought up a good point, why is it still so hard to contain a engine failure with the materials available today?

Ozair wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I take the lives seriously. My feelings will get involved when I am getting the impression that I am conversing with someone that appears not to be expressing the same care/concerns. I will assume that you did not fully read my posts to you. What I stated as fact is fact. My hope is that you did not fully read my posts and therefore responded without understanding what I stand for and where I stand. Would make me feel more comfortable thinking Australians stand up for what is right.

Again I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. If you think that my advocacy for a single engine jet comes at the expense of aircrew’s lives then we will have to agree to disagree. Given I know people in the respective communities flight safety is just as personal to me.

thumper76 wrote:

BTW purchasing the super Hornets for Australia's huge unpopulated back yard was a good move in my opinion

The RAAF acquisition of the SH was a great idea but it had nothing to do with the Australian landscape and everything to do with the unsustainable costs of the F-111 and the need for a replacement. The SH requires just 5 rides for a classic Hornet crew member to convert across so it was easier for the RAAF to roll aircrew across to the SH than any other potential interim. The F-35 delays that occurred after that showed it was a great idea for an interim capability.

thumper76 wrote:

Canada is intending to operate one type of fighter. That being so I believe Canada can only go with a twin stealth aircraft. I personally think that Canada should operate two types of witch one would be at least a forth gen twin (f18, rafale or typhoon). And a stealth with full passive interrogation. The twin to patrol the north and the stealth platform for high threat environments /conflicts.

So this is where we can assess some good work done by members of the RCAF. One of the primary issues Canada faces is the economic ability to afford new fighter jets and is one of the reasons the Liberals keep kicking the can down the road.

What we know is that operating two types comes at a greater cost than a single fleet, both in sustainment costs and in acquisition cost and requires more overall aircraft. This is evidenced by the following study,
army.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=120786.0;attach=53025

You will need to cut and paste into your web browser to view. It was available on the RCAF website but was one of the documents taken down when the Liberals placed a gag order on the RCAF talking about fighter capability and requirements.

What it shows is that the RCAF found it not cost effective to run fast jet mixed fleets for a force the size of the RCAF. Quote below,

The previous section showed a mixed fleet of 74 aircraft does not deliver the same capability as a single fleet of 65 aircraft. This section examines known cost considerations in an effort to compare the single and mixed fleets. Despite having a sub-fleet of lower cost aircraft, the loss of economies of scale combined with the cost of duplication may result in a mixed fleet that is more expensive than its single fleet counterpart as was shown in a recent estimate of sustainment costs of future Australian fighter fleets (Ref. R).
Figure 1 presents a fitting analogy that helps one understand that reducing acquisition costs alone is completely insufficient to ensure mixed fleet costs are comparable to those of a single fleet. The studies at Refs. S and T provide evidence that is consistent with the existence of significant fixed operating, support, and infrastructure costs associated with any aircraft fleet. In the case of a mixed fleet, extra costs result from duplication: infrastructure; aircraft maintenance support equipment; operational and maintenance training; supply lines; project management; engineering support; aircraft certification; test and evaluation; storage and management of spare parts, weapons, and expendables; and electronic warfare and systems reprogramming are just some of the many sources of duplication amongst the two sub-fleets.

So mixed fleets are not a great idea when you don’t have either the specific need or the force size to sustain them. The argument is that the Canadian North is not different enough from other operations to require a whole separate type to operate in that region.

thumper76 wrote:

Obviously at the this time the f35 would be the only option for the stealth. I would like to have our platforms integrated to both the west and European systems.... I know now I am asking to much! I would like the flexibility to use armaments from the west or Europe depending on world political climate. Sounds like a stretch but if the aircraft is to be in service till 2060 I don't think we could take less.

When you say integrated with West and European systems what are you referring to specifically? There is already broad integration at the NATO level so am curious what you are referring to.

As for the armaments, it is certainly moving in the right direction. The US is bringing in UAI which will allow a manufacturer to design all the interface systems against a common standard. It will make software integration into a jet nearly seamless and just require the carry and release tests to verify compatibility. Some info on UAI here, http://defense-update.com/products/u/uai.htm
I’d expect UAI to become a NATO standard at some point soon, it makes too much sense for it not to be.

thumper76 wrote:

Might be best for Canada and some other countries to combine heads to build fighter that can be a jack of all trades,, but that is getting political. That being said airbus just called Canada "its first member country outside Europe" but 10+ years is a long time to wait.

Don’t you think Canada has already done that? The JSF program has brought a true multi-role aircraft that is better than the platforms it has been designed to replace. Canada's participation has come with some excellent industrial benefits.

thumper76 wrote:

And a stealth with full passive interrogation.

What do you define full passive interrogation as?

thumper76 wrote:

The twin to patrol the north and the stealth platform for high threat environments /conflicts.

Another great read is the Threat Capability Assessment for Canada’s Fighter Aircraft Capability which was published a few years ago and makes pretty clear the assessed threat environment that the next Canadian fighter jet will operate in. The assessment is available here, http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/threat-capability-assessment-en.page

It seems difficult to separate the two areas into separate fighter jet capability based on what CDI has indicated is the likely threat.

I am well aware that Canada has been a big part of the program since the beginning, Canada parted ways because the program was out of control with other members also leaving making the cost per unit skyrocket. I fully understand that Canada has a limited budget for its military... To be honest I think it is disgusting. All of what I just said I have said before. The passive system witch you question is the type that is used in the f35 (long range Ir tracking and attack) it is passive because it does not need to send out a signal to get a return. Quite common terminology. And yes I do want what is best for Canada's pilots

thumper76 wrote:

And yes I do want what is best for Canada's pilots

The only reason why CF18s were sent into Libya and Iraq/Syria was because there was no A/A threat and the risk from ground attack was minimal. Legacy fighters are happy lingering around and dropping bombs when no one can shoot back. What's going to happen in the future if the enemy can shoot back with modern A/A equipment aka MH17? You think our pilots will be safer in 2030 flying around in a twin 4th gen fighter or an advanced stealth? Our flight times above the 54th parallel are so minimal that it's not worth even considering a twin-engine fighter. In our last three accidents, two were pilot error and the other was an engine failure at low altitude - where having two engines didn't mean squat. RCAF, including the pilots, have already chosen the F35 as the next fighter, they know that its technological advancements far outweigh some BS notion that two engines are safer.

thumper76 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

Canada is intending to operate one type of fighter. That being so I believe Canada can only go with a twin stealth aircraft. I personally think that Canada should operate two types of witch one would be at least a forth gen twin (f18, rafale or typhoon). And a stealth with full passive interrogation. The twin to patrol the north and the stealth platform for high threat environments /conflicts.

Canada will only operate one type of fighter because the military can't afford to operate two separate fleets of aircraft doing the same job, and we don't have the manpower to do so.

We barely have the manpower to keep the current fleet running; witness what happened to 433 Squadron at Bagotville a few years back (it was disbanded and the personnel transferred to 425 Squadron to makeup for personnel shortages).

Also, I only think of one CF-18's over the life of the fleet where having two engines was a factor in safely recovering the aircraft; the pilot got really lucky that time and the engine failure occurred really close to an airfield, and he was able to set down quick. Every other time where an engine had a failure on a CF-18, we lost the aircraft.

Also, other countries that operate their fighters in adverse climates where the chance of rescue for a pilot that punched out is extremely slim are more than happy to operate single engined fighters in their operating environments; the Japanese regularly operate their F-2's over the North Pacific Ocean, the Americans operate F-16's up in Alaska, and the Norwegians operate their F-16's over the North Sea and up over the Arctic Circle.

To your knowledge how many times have f18 pilots had to shut down a engine in flight? That Is a choice you don't have with a single. But you have brought up a good point, why is it still so hard to contain a engine failure with the materials available today?

The difference is that on a twin engined fighter, a pilot shutting down one engine is mostly a precautionary measure. On a single engine fighter, the instructions are different; review the F-16's Dash One for details, but the gist of it is, the pilot is to maintain a constant throttle level until it is absolutely necessary to adjust the throttle.

The accident results for twin engine fighters where there is a single engine failure usually indicate that the cause of the failure would also cause would have lead to the other engine failing, or creates a massive thrust imbalance that the aircraft is no longer controllable. The latter happened to one CF-18 a few years back.

Powerslide wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

And yes I do want what is best for Canada's pilots

The only reason why CF18s were sent into Libya and Iraq/Syria was because there was no A/A threat and the risk from ground attack was minimal. Legacy fighters are happy lingering around and dropping bombs when no one can shoot back. What's going to happen in the future if the enemy can shoot back with modern A/A equipment aka MH17? You think our pilots will be safer in 2030 flying around in a twin 4th gen fighter or an advanced stealth? Our flight times above the 54th parallel are so minimal that it's not worth even considering a twin-engine fighter. In our last three accidents, two were pilot error and the other was an engine failure at low altitude - where having two engines didn't mean squat. RCAF, including the pilots, have already chosen the F35 as the next fighter, they know that its technological advancements far outweigh some BS notion that two engines are safer.

I at no time said that I would want the Canadian airforce flying 4gen fighters in a conflict in 2030 I am fully aware they are already outdated. I stated that I the late model 4th gen fighter would be used in our own backyard. I also said we require an advanced stealth platform for conflicts. Do not put words in my mouth. How many times flying over Canada has a f18 pilot erring on the side of caution shut down a engine dew to issues with the engine? That is not an option on a single engine platform. Those are the situations where having two engines helps, engine shut downs don't make the press, but be sure they happen. What I really want for Canada's pilots is a new twin stealth with the f35 electronics installed. unfortunately there are none available and Canadians will unlikely be willing to cough up the money for it.

thumper76 wrote:

I am well aware that Canada has been a big part of the program since the beginning, Canada parted ways because the program was out of control with other members also leaving making the cost per unit skyrocket. I fully understand that Canada has a limited budget for its military... To be honest I think it is disgusting. All of what I just said I have said before.

Not sure where you have gathered that information but it is not correct. Canada has not left the JSF SDD partnership. They remain a member and continue to pay their membership fees.

Canada has so far forked over more than $311 million to develop the F-35 — without any guarantee it will actually buy the multibillion-dollar stealth fighter.
The most recent instalment was made June 24, when the Liberal government quietly paid $32.9 million to the U.S. program office overseeing development of the warplane, despite having promised during last year’s election campaign not to buy the F-35.

http://nationalpost.com/g00/news/politics/liberals-pay-33-million-to-stay-in-f-35-program-despite-promise-not-to-buy-it?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS5hdS8%3D

Just so we are clear, the total money Canada has invested in the JSF partnership is $311 million. For that small sum Canadian industry has received over $812 million in orders by 2016 and as production now ramps up I expect that to increase significantly. What is true is that Canada has yet to order the F-35 so at some point shortly the other partner nations will essentially ask Canada to order or lose future industrial work. No surprise as that was a fundamental and agreed upon component of the SDD program.

I’m not aware of any JSF partner that has left the program, can you provide the other members who have left?

The cost also hasn't skyrocketed, the jet is not yet in full rate production but the estimates continue to track on reaching that US$75-80 million per airframe target for the F-35A, which is the version Canada would order.

thumper76 wrote:

The passive system witch you question is the type that is used in the f35 (long range lr tracking and attack) it is passive because it does not need to send out a signal to get a return. Quite common terminology. And yes I do want what is best for Canada's pilots

Do you mean the EOTS Infra-red Search and track System (IRST) system? In that case interrogation is not the right term. IRSTs have some functionality but are relatively short ranged (compared to radar) and cannot provide ranging information. In most cases the IRST is supported by a laser range finder or with active radar to determine range. The system essentially tells you something is out there but that is it.

ThePointblank wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Canada will only operate one type of fighter because the military can't afford to operate two separate fleets of aircraft doing the same job, and we don't have the manpower to do so.

We barely have the manpower to keep the current fleet running; witness what happened to 433 Squadron at Bagotville a few years back (it was disbanded and the personnel transferred to 425 Squadron to makeup for personnel shortages).

Also, I only think of one CF-18's over the life of the fleet where having two engines was a factor in safely recovering the aircraft; the pilot got really lucky that time and the engine failure occurred really close to an airfield, and he was able to set down quick. Every other time where an engine had a failure on a CF-18, we lost the aircraft.

Also, other countries that operate their fighters in adverse climates where the chance of rescue for a pilot that punched out is extremely slim are more than happy to operate single engined fighters in their operating environments; the Japanese regularly operate their F-2's over the North Pacific Ocean, the Americans operate F-16's up in Alaska, and the Norwegians operate their F-16's over the North Sea and up over the Arctic Circle.

To your knowledge how many times have f18 pilots had to shut down a engine in flight? That Is a choice you don't have with a single. But you have brought up a good point, why is it still so hard to contain a engine failure with the materials available today?

The difference is that on a twin engined fighter, a pilot shutting down one engine is mostly a precautionary measure. On a single engine fighter, the instructions are different; review the F-16's Dash One for details, but the gist of it is, the pilot is to maintain a constant throttle level until it is absolutely necessary to adjust the throttle.

The accident results for twin engine fighters where there is a single engine failure usually indicate that the cause of the failure would also cause would have lead to the other engine failing, or creates a massive thrust imbalance that the aircraft is no longer controllable. The latter happened to one CF-18 a few years back.

I don't disagree with a single thing you said in the last two paragraphs. Having a unexpected engine malfunction during maneuvers or at low altitude is always going to be dangerous. Even skilled pilots can be caught off guard. But having the ability to shut down a engine as a precaution is safer than trying to coax the only engine to a suitable rwy, every mile decreases odds of success, and in Canada those mile numbers are high.

Ozair wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I am well aware that Canada has been a big part of the program since the beginning, Canada parted ways because the program was out of control with other members also leaving making the cost per unit skyrocket. I fully understand that Canada has a limited budget for its military... To be honest I think it is disgusting. All of what I just said I have said before.

Not sure where you have gathered that information but it is not correct. Canada has not left the JSF SDD partnership. They remain a member and continue to pay their membership fees.

Canada has so far forked over more than $311 million to develop the F-35 — without any guarantee it will actually buy the multibillion-dollar stealth fighter.
The most recent instalment was made June 24, when the Liberal government quietly paid $32.9 million to the U.S. program office overseeing development of the warplane, despite having promised during last year’s election campaign not to buy the F-35.

http://nationalpost.com/g00/news/politics/liberals-pay-33-million-to-stay-in-f-35-program-despite-promise-not-to-buy-it?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS5hdS8%3D

Just so we are clear, the total money Canada has invested in the JSF partnership is $311 million. For that small sum Canadian industry has received over $812 million in orders by 2016 and as production now ramps up I expect that to increase significantly. What is true is that Canada has yet to order the F-35 so at some point shortly the other partner nations will essentially ask Canada to order or lose future industrial work. No surprise as that was a fundamental and agreed upon component of the SDD program.

I’m not aware of any JSF partner that has left the program, can you provide the other members who have left?

The cost also hasn't skyrocketed, the jet is not yet in full rate production but the estimates continue to track on reaching that US$75-80 million per airframe target for the F-35A, which is the version Canada would order.

thumper76 wrote:

The passive system witch you question is the type that is used in the f35 (long range lr tracking and attack) it is passive because it does not need to send out a signal to get a return. Quite common terminology. And yes I do want what is best for Canada's pilots

Do you mean the EOTS Infra-red Search and track System (IRST) system? In that case interrogation is not the right term. IRSTs have some functionality but are relatively short ranged (compared to radar) and cannot provide ranging information. In most cases the IRST is supported by a laser range finder or with active radar to determine range. The system essentially tells you something is out there but that is it.

Even great Britain was threatening to leave the program, in regards to long rang interrogation, I was referring to the ability of the pilot to find a target at longe range and if need be move in for the kill, all without being detected. I was not referring to any specific current system. The system that fits best at this time is on the f35.

thumper76 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

To your knowledge how many times have f18 pilots had to shut down a engine in flight? That Is a choice you don't have with a single. But you have brought up a good point, why is it still so hard to contain a engine failure with the materials available today?

The difference is that on a twin engined fighter, a pilot shutting down one engine is mostly a precautionary measure. On a single engine fighter, the instructions are different; review the F-16's Dash One for details, but the gist of it is, the pilot is to maintain a constant throttle level until it is absolutely necessary to adjust the throttle.

The accident results for twin engine fighters where there is a single engine failure usually indicate that the cause of the failure would also cause would have lead to the other engine failing, or creates a massive thrust imbalance that the aircraft is no longer controllable. The latter happened to one CF-18 a few years back.

I don't disagree with a single thing you said in the last two paragraphs. Having a unexpected engine malfunction during maneuvers or at low altitude is always going to be dangerous. Even skilled pilots can be caught off guard. But having the ability to shut down a engine as a precaution is safer than trying to coax the only engine to a suitable rwy, every mile decreases odds of success, and in Canada those mile numbers are high.

The Japanese are more than happy to operate their single engined Mitsubishi F-2's in the maritime strike role, where if a pilot had the punch out over the Sea of Japan or the North Pacific, his chance of survival and rescue is slim to none in the very cold waters.

The Americans are also more than happy to operate F-16's over Alaska, where again, the chance of survival and rescue of a pilot punching out over Alaska or over the Bering Sea, or the North Pacific is also fairly slim.

The Norwegians are also comfortable flying F-16's over the Arctic Circle and over the Norwegian Sea, the North Sea, and the Barents Sea, where again, the chance of survival and rescue of a pilot punching out is frankly, extremely low to say the least.

You are dramatically over stating the risks to the pilots in a single engined fighter; today's single engined fighters are extremely reliable.

Statistically, single engined fighters are more reliable than twin engined fighters. You only now go to a twin engine fighter solution if you need the extra performance the second engine would bring to the table.

For example, the F-16 with the Pratt & Whitney’s F100-229 engine has never had a Class A mishap due to engine failure; the F-15 with the exact same engine has had 5 over the life of the F-15 in USAF service. The JAS Gripen also has a clean record when it comes to engine reliability.

Even the USN has accepted this, and that's why they are bring the F-35C to the carrier decks; NAVAIR would not allow a fighter design to even reach the deck of a carrier if they didn't think the design had sufficient reliability and dependability.

thumper76 wrote:

Even great Britain was threatening to leave the program,

Just so we are clear then, Canada has not left the program and neither has the UK, so when you said Canada had left along with others you must have been thinking of something else?

In fact I haven't seen a single news report that indicates such and given the UK is the only Level one partner, with BAE having a major stake in production and RR having a major stake in the STOVL lift system, I find it hard to understand how you could come to that conclusion. The UK stake in the JSF was US$2.5 billion and each F-35 has 15% manufactured in the UK content which given the 3000+ projected aircraft amounts to a lot of industrial work for a long time.

thumper76 wrote:

in regards to long rang interrogation, I was referring to the ability of the pilot to find a target at longe range and if need be move in for the kill, all without being detected. I was not referring to any specific current system. The system that fits best at this time is on the f35.

You're not making sense, you say no specific current system but then you say the system that fits best is on the F-35? Which system, the EOTS, the DAS, the ALQ-239, the APG-81?

As for passive detection, as already indicated the IRST has some capability, as does the DAS while the ALQ-239 which is an upgraded and improved version of that fitted to the F-22 is very capable of passive detection and location. The F-35 also has the APG-81 AESA radar which is capable of low probability of intercept (LPI) modes, making the radar energy exceptionally hard to detect.

Ozair wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

Even great Britain was threatening to leave the program,

Just so we are clear then, Canada has not left the program and neither has the UK, so when you said Canada had left along with others you must have been thinking of something else?

In fact I haven't seen a single news report that indicates such and given the UK is the only Level one partner, with BAE having a major stake in production and RR having a major stake in the STOVL lift system, I find it hard to understand how you could come to that conclusion. The UK stake in the JSF was US$2.5 billion and each F-35 has 15% manufactured in the UK content which given the 3000+ projected aircraft amounts to a lot of industrial work for a long time.

thumper76 wrote:

in regards to long rang interrogation, I was referring to the ability of the pilot to find a target at longe range and if need be move in for the kill, all without being detected. I was not referring to any specific current system. The system that fits best at this time is on the f35.

You're not making sense, you say no specific current system but then you say the system that fits best is on the F-35? Which system, the EOTS, the DAS, the ALQ-239, the APG-81?

As for passive detection, as already indicated the IRST has some capability, as does the DAS while the ALQ-239 which is an upgraded and improved version of that fitted to the F-22 is very capable of passive detection and location. The F-35 also has the APG-81 AESA radar which is capable of low probability of intercept (LPI) modes, making the radar energy exceptionally hard to detect.

Reread the last sentence of my post, you are are putting words into my mouth and seem to have a rather aggressive stance towards Canada purchasing the f35. There is no way that we will see eye to eye, this argument is going in circles so this will be my last response to you...
Have a great day

Ozair wrote:

In fact I haven't seen a single news report that indicates such and given the UK is the only Level one partner, with BAE having a major stake in production and RR having a major stake in the STOVL lift system, I find it hard to understand how you could come to that conclusion. The UK stake in the JSF was US$2.5 billion and each F-35 has 15% manufactured in the UK content which given the 3000+ projected aircraft amounts to a lot of industrial work for a long time.

Just as a point of interest -- there was a UK parliament committee session uploaded in the public domain where a LMCO rep (I think it was the UK head -- but there were three there) said that the UK industry was going to see something like $12bn in orders for a $2.5bn "buy in" fee, which is a pretty crazy ROI.

thumper76 wrote:

and in Canada those mile numbers are high.

How many of those miles are spent flying in areas where there are no airfields?

thumper76 wrote:

Those are the situations where having two engines helps, engine shut downs don't make the press, but be sure they happen. What I really want for Canada's pilots is a new twin stealth with the f35 electronics installed. unfortunately there are none available and Canadians will unlikely be willing to cough up the money for it.

Engine shut downs don't happen as frequently as you think. New twin stealth fighters don't exist, even the F22 is now 20 years old and outdated by the F35.

Ozair wrote:

Finland is looking to acquire a new fighter jet in the early 2020s with the two likely finalists being the F-35 and the Gripen, both single engine aircraft…

Do you have any fact or is it just speculation?
Not that I disagree, as quite likely there will be no two-engine fighter in production in mid 2020's and any Tornado replacement, even when ready, will not be suitable for the needs of Finland.
And here I predict Finland to choose F-35 just for political reasons (whether it is technically best or not), if the decision can be postponed to post-Trumpian era and if they can afford it, which is not clear. (To be clear, this is just speculation)

Powerslide wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

and in Canada those mile numbers are high.

How many of those miles are spent flying in areas where there are no airfields?

thumper76 wrote:

Those are the situations where having two engines helps, engine shut downs don't make the press, but be sure they happen. What I really want for Canada's pilots is a new twin stealth with the f35 electronics installed. unfortunately there are none available and Canadians will unlikely be willing to cough up the money for it.

Engine shut downs don't happen as frequently as you think. New twin stealth fighters don't exist, even the F22 is now 20 years old and outdated by the F35.

The question is should Canada leave half of it's land unprotected? I am aware there are no twin stealth aircraft available at this time, and that if a new program was started we would be still 10+ years from production. Canada put itself in a bind IMHO

thumper76 wrote:

Reread the last sentence of my post, you are are putting words into my mouth and seem to have a rather aggressive stance towards Canada purchasing the f35.

Words in your mouth?

Here is how the conversation went,

Ozair wrote:

thumper76 wrote:
The passive system witch you question is the type that is used in the f35 (long range lr tracking and attack) it is passive because it does not need to send out a signal to get a return. Quite common terminology. And yes I do want what is best for Canada's pilots


Do you mean the EOTS Infra-red Search and track System (IRST) system? In that case interrogation is not the right term. IRSTs have some functionality but are relatively short ranged (compared to radar) and cannot provide ranging information. In most cases the IRST is supported by a laser range finder or with active radar to determine range. The system essentially tells you something is out there but that is it.

So I asked you what specific system you were referring to.

You then said

thumper76 wrote:

in regards to long rang interrogation, I was referring to the ability of the pilot to find a target at longe range and if need be move in for the kill, all without being detected. I was not referring to any specific current system. The system that fits best at this time is on the f35.

Can you see how I would be confused when you state a specific system on the F-35 and then don’t state what it is? Clearly I am not putting words into your mouth when all I am asking is for clarification, I even provided you with a list of the systems on the F-35 that may provide this passive interrogation that you talk about.

I'm also not sure why any of my posts to you can be viewed as aggressive? Can you indicate where I have insulted you or Canada or been aggressive?
If you think I have been, you are welcome to report my posts to the moderators here who can make an assessment on the quality and potential aggressive nature of my posts.

thumper76 wrote:

There is no way that we will see eye to eye, this argument is going in circles so this will be my last response to you...
Have a great day

As you wish but as I said from the start I was and continue to be interested in a facts based discussion on this. I have provided numerous official reports and information that support my position and was hoping you would do the same.

angad84 wrote:

Just as a point of interest -- there was a UK parliament committee session uploaded in the public domain where a LMCO rep (I think it was the UK head -- but there were three there) said that the UK industry was going to see something like $12bn in orders for a $2.5bn "buy in" fee, which is a pretty crazy ROI.

Indeed, if we estimate that the UK does manufacture 15% of every F-35 and the average acquisition price of the F-35 over its life is US$100 million then we get the figure of US$45 billion dollars of business for UK industry for the expected 3000 aircraft. Obviously there are other costs and margins and profit and all sorts of things that factor into that figure but even half that, US22.5 billion dollars, is a great investment!
And that is before we look at long term sustainment, which are probably different contracts that UK industry would have to compete for but the opportunities are there.

YIMBY wrote:

Do you have any fact or is it just speculation?
Not that I disagree, as quite likely there will be no two-engine fighter in production in mid 2020's and any Tornado replacement, even when ready, will not be suitable for the needs of Finland.

At the moment there are five companies expected to compete,

Five international bidding groups, including Boeing (F/A-18E/F Super Hornet), Lockheed Martin (F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter), BAE Systems (Eurofighter Typhoon), Saab (Gripen E) and Dassault Aviation (Rafale), will battle for the HX FPP contract. Depending on the aircraft type selected by Finland, the value of the contract is expected to be worth between €7 billion (U.S. $7.8 billion) and €10 billion (U.S. $11.2 billion).

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... hter-deal/

There has been a lot of assessment and comment from industry insiders though regarding both the F-35 and the Gripen as the favourites.
This site has some good assessment https://corporalfrisk.com and there are quite a few articles around that point to the Gripen and F-35 being the preferred options. I will find some I have read over the last couple of years and perhaps PM them to you.

YIMBY wrote:

And here I predict Finland to choose F-35 just for political reasons (whether it is technically best or not), if the decision can be postponed to post-Trumpian era and if they can afford it, which is not clear. (To be clear, this is just speculation)

The selection date in somewhere in 2021 and the next US election is in November 2020 with a potential new President taking over in Jan 2021. As for affording it, the F-35 will be in full rate production then and there are already news reports pointing to the US getting the price below US$80 million per aircraft, thereby likely being the cheapest to acquire option of any of the candidates. It would of course still have to meet the Finnish requirements for the competition.

[quote="Ozair"
There has been a lot of assessment and comment from industry insiders though regarding both the F-35 and the Gripen as the favourites.
This site has some good assessment https://corporalfrisk.com and there are quite a few articles around that point to the Gripen and F-35 being the preferred options. I will find some I have read over the last couple of years and perhaps PM them to you.
[/quote]

Thanks for the links. That blog, written by a Finnish civil engineer claims, however, that Gripen and F-35 are disfavoured as they cannot carry the long range cruise missiles with penetrating warheads that Finland wants (currently JASSM). I do not know why Finland needs such, but I guess that in case of Russian aggression they do not want or dare to send their precious aircraft to Russian air space but prefer to strike with missiles launched from their own air space.

YIMBY wrote:

Thanks for the links. That blog, written by a Finnish civil engineer claims, however, that Gripen and F-35 are disfavoured as they cannot carry the long range cruise missiles with penetrating warheads that Finland wants (currently JASSM).

It comes down to integration. At the moment the F-35 is configured for JSOW but no long range cruise missile until Blk 5. JASSM was Blk 4 but it has been moved to Blk 5. Much of that is based on the role of JASSM and the capability of the F-35 to penetrate contested airspace. That being said, there is nothing to stop another F-35 user from integrating JASSM early, such as the RAAF, who have JASSM on the classic Hornet which will be entirely replaced by the F-35 by 2023. The good news for JASSM and F-35 is both will use the UAI interface so integration is very easy and relatively cheap. I’d expect a similar cost profile for Gripen to integrate a cruise missile given the app nature of the avionics.

The two primary reasons for those respective airframes being favourites comes down to industry/political and operational life. The new Finnish fighter is expected to serve until at least 2060 and the F-35 is the only platform essentially guaranteed to serve till that timeframe. All others will be long out of production and almost certainly retired by their primary operators.

For industry/political both the Gripen and the F-35 have advantages over the competition given the proximity of Sweden and existing operating US aircraft in Finland.

This link from a couple of years ago http://airheadsfly.com/2015/04/06/finnish-hornets-to-be-replaced-by-gripen-or-rafale/ talks up the chances of the Gripen while states the F-35 will be too expensive but that will be the opposite come 2021 when the decision is made. I'll find some others I have read previously and post them.

YIMBY wrote:

I do not know why Finland needs such, but I guess that in case of Russian aggression they do not want or dare to send their precious aircraft to Russian air space but prefer to strike with missiles launched from their own air space.

I believe the requirement was formulated around Finland ensuring that adversaries need to plan for the presence of JASSM, even though they don’t have a large number of them.
Last I heard the integration wasn’t going well, not from a platform perspective, as indicated earlier the RAAF have already integrated JASSM to classic Hornet, but that there are issues around engineering and range access in the US.

ThePointblank wrote:

With aircraft like the F-22 and F-35, the sensors are feeding raw information to the fusion engine; this way the fusion engine has all available information possible. The fusion engine then creates a single track from all that data and can use data from sensors that is unavailable in track correlation systems.

For example, if a IRST has intermittent contact with a target, which would normally not be enough to generate and maintain a track with the IRST itself, the F-35's fusion engine could take the available information from the IRST, task other available sensors to look at the target, and use all of the information to generate a single track. With Eurofighter and Rafale, their fusion engines probably would have ignored the target information from the IRST as the IRST would not have enough information to generate a track to be used to correlate with other sensors.

Furthermore, with aircraft like the F-22 and the F-35, the fusion engine is more automated and can truly automatically cue and task all the sensors. This lowers pilot workload and improves situational awareness a lot in complex situations, which means that a F-22 or F-35 pilot has a much shorter OODA loop to go through. This means of course, shorter reaction and engagement times for the F-22 or F-35 pilot.

It also means that the F-22 and F-35 actually do sensor fusion against much larger number of simultaneous targets. For example if RWR detects something in 3 different directions simultaneously, sensor fusion engine can command radar, IRST and IFF systems to probe for more information in very quick order.

In contrast, in aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter the RWR would first have to get more information before giving info to pilot who might then have to control all the sensors to do the same. This would take a lot more time and the situation might change drastically during that time.

Thus, a F-22 or F-35 pilot is much more of a tactician in his aircraft, compared to a Rafale or Eurofighter pilot.

Ozair wrote:

As for your obvious and false claim that I represent someone or something here, I have been on airliners since 2005. You are welcome to review my posting history to see how I slant. Back in 2005 I was a strong advocate for Australia getting the F-22 over the F-35 but slowly changed my mind as more information became available, and my experiences allowed me to understand the fast jet environment better.

Last time I checked the US had a export ban on the F-22 unless they're in process of backing down. Anyway they've stopped production so I'm confused as to including the F-22 in this discussion.

http://reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSKBN1D82Z4

"Airbus eyes Canadian military deal, further cooperation with Bombardier"

Dirk Hoke, chief executive of Airbus Defense and Space, said the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet could be an option for further collaboration with Bombardier, although he did not specify further.

"We will definitely also look at additional potential further cooperation with Bombardier beyond just the CSeries," Hoke told Reuters on the sidelines of an Ottawa aerospace conference.

bmacleod wrote:

Last time I checked the US had a export ban on the F-22 unless they're in process of backing down. Anyway they've stopped production so I'm confused as to including the F-22 in this discussion.

Just saw this. My statement was related to my posting history and while yes the F-22 was never exported there was talk of that occurring in the mid 2000s. The US offered Australia participation in the F-22 program in the late 1990s but Australia rightly knocked this back as they correctly assessed that the sustainment costs of the F-22 would be too high for the RAAF to afford. The F-35 is certainly an all round better fit for RAAF service given the lower sustainment cost and better A2G capability.

Per Reuters:

Canada is scrapping a plan to buy 18 new Boeing Co Super Hornet fighter jets amid a deepening dispute with the U.S. aerospace company, three sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.

Instead, the Liberal government will announce next week it intends to buy a used fleet of older Australia F-18 jets, the same kind of plane Canada currently operates, said the sources, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the situation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/05/reuters ... s-say.html

was coming here to post the same news
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cana ... DZ2W2?il=0

That should soften their cough a little.

Is it that difficult to decide on a permanent solution? Perhaps the Canadian government will continue to buy used aircraft for decades to come because they can't decide on something new.

leghorn wrote:

was coming here to post the same news
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cana ... DZ2W2?il=0

That should soften their cough a little.

Not unexpected news but serves as another backflip for the Liberal Government on military procurement.

I’m not sure there is much viability in the plan to acquire RAAF classic Hornets. The RAAF is unlikely to rid itself of the lowest time airframes first as the F-35 arrives and the bulk of the Classic Hornet fleet won’t retire from RAAF service until mid 2021-22. The current plan, confirmed just a few weeks ago, is an open competition that will begin in 2019 with a selection by 2021.

The Royal Canadian Air Force expects to release a new request for proposals for its fifth-generation fighter competition by 2019 with a contract award by 2021, the RCAF’s commander says this week.
In June, Canada proposed 88 new fighters for the RCAF , an increase from the previous government’s plan to purchase 65 jets to replace the aging CF-18 fleet, but did not outline a timeline for the RFP.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-443137/

Could the acquisition of RAAF Hornets allow Canada to delay this competition even further? 20 to 30 RAAF Hornets may buy Canada another 5-7 years of operational usage, albeit at a higher cost to sustain with a small subfleet of aircraft.
Delaying acquisition probably makes the ability to find a replacement more difficult. SH will definitely no longer be in production, Eurofighter would be doubtful and even Rafale may be in danger if Europe pursues a new fighter jet. F-35 will be in FRP and by 2025 will have 1500 aircraft flying globally with blk 4 finished and blk 5 starting.

The good news is we're not buying useless "interim" new SuperHornets. (Bundle of $ savings in procurement, maintenance and operation).

The second good news: some modification work is comimg for L3 MAS in Mirabel (IMHO the expert in legacy Hornets) to fit in RCAF specific equipments.

And last, that gives us way more time to pick the optimal permanent fighter later on (well, more time for the F35 to mature and lower its unit costs).

The bad news: we could have fast tracked the final procurement and escaped that interim Australian buy.

Boeing wanted to fight, let's fight. Go Canada!

Always interesting to read all the anti-America comments when US airlines and corporations are arguably Bombardier's best customers...

PennPal wrote:

Always interesting to read all the anti-America comments when US airlines and corporations are arguably Bombardier's best customers...

1) Canada is part of America.
2) Pro-fairness, Anti-Boeing, Anti-America and Anti-US are 4 different things.

PennPal wrote:

Always interesting to read all the anti-America comments...

Anti-America or anti-Boeing? Most people would be fine if Canada purchased some American Lockheed F-35s. The US President's motto is "America first", why is it difficult to believe that people of other countries might want to put their own countries "first" as well?


The Europeans saved the Canadian government's bottom by purchasing most of the CSeries off of Bombardier and the government. Of course, the Canadians are going to be fond of Europe right now, and may return the favor by possibly purchasing European millitary products in the future.

Ozair wrote:

leghorn wrote:

was coming here to post the same news
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cana ... DZ2W2?il=0

That should soften their cough a little.

Not unexpected news but serves as another backflip for the Liberal Government on military procurement.

I’m not sure there is much viability in the plan to acquire RAAF classic Hornets. The RAAF is unlikely to rid itself of the lowest time airframes first as the F-35 arrives and the bulk of the Classic Hornet fleet won’t retire from RAAF service until mid 2021-22. The current plan, confirmed just a few weeks ago, is an open competition that will begin in 2019 with a selection by 2021.

The Royal Canadian Air Force expects to release a new request for proposals for its fifth-generation fighter competition by 2019 with a contract award by 2021, the RCAF’s commander says this week.
In June, Canada proposed 88 new fighters for the RCAF , an increase from the previous government’s plan to purchase 65 jets to replace the aging CF-18 fleet, but did not outline a timeline for the RFP.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-443137/

Could the acquisition of RAAF Hornets allow Canada to delay this competition even further? 20 to 30 RAAF Hornets may buy Canada another 5-7 years of operational usage, albeit at a higher cost to sustain with a small subfleet of aircraft.
Delaying acquisition probably makes the ability to find a replacement more difficult. SH will definitely no longer be in production, Eurofighter would be doubtful and even Rafale may be in danger if Europe pursues a new fighter jet. F-35 will be in FRP and by 2025 will have 1500 aircraft flying globally with blk 4 finished and blk 5 starting.

I would imagine we will buy Australia's used Hornets to either replace more worn out aircraft, or for cannibalization for parts. Either way, would keep the existing Hornet fleet running for a few more years.

Maybe Canada should team up with Germany and France to built that next generation fighter.

PennPal wrote:

Always interesting to read all the anti-America comments when US airlines and corporations are arguably Bombardier's best customers...

I thought only Russians would defend the indefensible by making it all about anti-(insert country), I guess I am wrong.

JetBuddy wrote:

Maybe Canada should team up with Germany and France to built that next generation fighter.

They should, but unfortunately, the timing seems off, just read the Luftwaffe Tornado replacement.

Dutchy wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Maybe Canada should team up with Germany and France to built that next generation fighter.

They should, but unfortunately, the timing seems off, just read the Luftwaffe Tornado replacement.

Well, theoretically, if resources were unlimited, they still could. Buy the F-35 now, but join the European effort for the next buy. Question is, how large would a fleet of fighters need to be for two types to not lose economies of scale?

sharles wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Maybe Canada should team up with Germany and France to built that next generation fighter.

They should, but unfortunately, the timing seems off, just read the Luftwaffe Tornado replacement.

Well, theoretically, if resources were unlimited, they still could. Buy the F-35 now, but join the European effort for the next buy. Question is, how large would a fleet of fighters need to be for two types to not lose economies of scale?

Shouldn't be a better route, if Canada wants to go that way: let Airbus/Dassault deliver an interim fleet of Eurofighters/Rafale and take these back when the new 6th gen. a/c will be delivered?

A result of the anti Canada decision by Boeing and the CoC,
Blocking a non competing product & call in the government for support.
It not not only hurt credibility but costs billions too.

sharles wrote:

Well, theoretically, if resources were unlimited, they still could. Buy the F-35 now, but join the European effort for the next buy. Question is, how large would a fleet of fighters need to be for two types to not lose economies of scale?

For a fleet size that Canada is expecting to acquire there is little logic to a mixed fleet. The reasons are political, not financial or capability.
Not sure if I posted in this thread or the previous Canadian one but the RCAF had issued a study that demonstrated that a mixed fleet that covered the two primary missions of NORAD and NATO would require more aircraft, more pilots and a greater sustainment burden than a single fleet.

A cut from the study is here,

Based on reasonable assumptions, the RCAF can maintain anticipated domestic and international commitments using a single fleet of 65 fighter aircraft and 90 pilots.
A mixed fighter fleet can provide the same or equivalent capability, but not without significantly more aircraft and pilots.
Mixed fighter fleets comparable in size to the single fighter fleet will likely result in lower overall capability, at a higher cost.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-report ... et-en.page
Unfortunately the above link does not work. The article was removed as well as a host of others after the Liberals came to power in Canada. The Libs slapped a NDA on all the acquisition staff and essentially purged the publically available documents of anything that didn’t match with their new intent…

What we know though is people keep going on about a mixed fleet for Canada but the logic is flawed. Mixed fleets work when the respective Air Force already has a decent number of 4th gen aircraft in service, such as the UK or Italy which will integrate F-35 alongside their existing Eurofighter squadrons. Given Canada needs to replace one single fighter type there is no logic (other than political motivation) to split the new fleet into two types.
I will give you an example of some flawed assessment. In an article published earlier this year on the NATO Association of Canada website http://natoassociation.ca/the-case-for- ... ter-fleet/ the author indicated that Canada could comfortably operate a mixed fleet and that this would increase capability, not hinder it. His rationale was the following,

By acquiring a high/low mix fighter fleet comprising a few F-35s and numerous Super Hornets (including Growlers), the RCAF will be prepared to counter emerging peer and near-peer competitors looking to counter Western air forces’ air supremacy through the development of access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities which are weapon systems designed to make an airspace off-limits to an adversary. Only a mixed fleet can address the growing A2/AD threat since 4th and 5th generation aircrafts compensate for each others’ weaknesses. Indeed, thanks to its stealth, its unmatched ability in fusing data collected from its multiple high-tech sensors into actionable intelligence transmittable to other planes, the F-35 will act as a survivable Intelligence, Surveillance, Target acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) platform for Super Hornets in an increasingly contested airspace.

In other words, the F-35 will be a stealthy spotter and a command and control (C2) node that can operate close to enemy forces to identify targets for the non-stealthy Super Hornets acting as airborne missile platforms flying at a safe distance from the A2/AD envelope. The far-flying Super Hornets can then launch long-range missiles which are guided by the F-35’s sensors towards the targets it previously identified. Unlike 5thgeneration fighters that have a limited payload since they must carry their weapons internally to not give away stealth, 4th generation jets carry a lot more missiles externally given their non-stealthy layout. Hence the complementarity between the F-35 acting as a scout and the Super Hornet operating as a flying arsenal.

Can you spot the issues with his claims?
He states that 4th and 5th gen aircraft can complement each other in battle which is correct and we have seen that in the UK with Eurofighter and F-35B already training together. His false claim though is that 5th gen aircraft are limited by magazine depth, essentially they can only carry so many missiles internally. What he fails to grasp is that a 5th gen F-35 can become a missile truck just like the 4th gen SH if it needs to be.
For example his premise is using forward F-35s, whose stealth allows them to operate within hostile battle space, to identify and illuminate targets for SH in the rear areas that have a larger A2A payload. First issue obviously being the SH cannot carry a greater A2A payload than the F-35 if both are using external stores,
F-35

And the above load will move to 16 A2A missiles when the internal bays can include 6 A2A missiles.
SH

What we see in the above load for the SH in max A2A config, is one external fuel tank. The SH, while having more fuel than the classic Hornet, is still limited to an internal fuel load of 14,000 lbs plus approx 3000 lbs external while the F-35 has 18,000 lbs internal with an additional 18,000lbs of total payload. Not only that but the SH has canted pylons creating significant drag when carrying external stores. What that translates to is a significant disadvantage in a SH being operated as a rear area aircraft compared to the F-35 in range and persistence.

The other failure of logic in the article is that the SH is less costly to acquire than the F-35. We have seen from the FMS case submitted for the interim SH purchase that the cost of the airframe is significantly higher than what Canada could acquire the F-35 for. Additionally, from a capability perspective every single F-35 you acquire can operate in a high threat zone, the SH cannot without significant additional support. The F-35 brings a longer ranged radar, better LPI data-link, all aspect stealth airframe, integrated IRST, better WVR performance, improved EW, higher speed, greater payload range and a much larger support base that will operate and maintain the F-35 fleet for significantly longer.

The above applies to any 4th gen aircraft Canada could acquire if it wants to operate them in concert with F-35s or even separate.

Why doesnt Canada simply re-activate some its surplus Hornets instead of looking for second-hand examples abroad? Canada originally acquired 138 CF-18s. 77 are currently in active service while another 20 or so were lost through attrition. This should leave around 40 examples lying somewhere. What happened to those airframes? Unless of course they werent stored but instead simply unceremoniously scrapped... but that would be a very dumb and short-sighted decision.

st21 wrote:

Why doesnt Canada simply re-activate some its surplus Hornets instead of looking for second-hand examples abroad? Canada originally acquired 138 CF-18s. 77 are currently in active service while another 20 or so were lost through attrition. This should leave around 40 examples lying somewhere. What happened to those airframes? Unless of course they werent stored but instead simply unceremoniously scrapped... but that would be a very dumb and short-sighted decision.

I believe not all were upgraded to C model standard so the upgrade path would be more expensive than acquiring existing C model aircraft available.

The 40 or so lying somewhere are actually stored in Mirabel (or what's left of them). They had too many hours on them or had other problems so they were not upgraded.

LockheedBBD wrote:

Is it that difficult to decide on a permanent solution? Perhaps the Canadian government will continue to buy used aircraft for decades to come because they can't decide on something new.

They cannot stay in used Hornets that long. The newest C/D-models were delivered to Finland end of nineties and will be replaced late 20's. probably completely worn out.
Even if they can get Finland and Switzerland to accelerate their replacements to get their Hornets before the definitive end of life, they have to made a decision latest early 20's.

Ozair wrote:

Delaying acquisition probably makes the ability to find a replacement more difficult. SH will definitely no longer be in production, Eurofighter would be doubtful and even Rafale may be in danger if Europe pursues a new fighter jet. F-35 will be in FRP and by 2025 will have 1500 aircraft flying globally with blk 4 finished and blk 5 starting.

What is left is Gripen NG and it is not that bad to defend Canada. At least it is proven to work in snowy pieces of roads. The price may increase, though, if competitors disappear.

Have the issues of F-35 related to runway performance and operation in arctic conditions been solved? Maybe Norway may tell soon.

Do they still prefer twin engined aircraft?

YIMBY wrote:

What is left is Gripen NG and it is not that bad to defend Canada. At least it is proven to work in snowy pieces of roads. The price may increase, though, if competitors disappear.

Gripen E is unlikely to be able to compete with the F-35 on acquisition price given the F-35 production rate in one year will likely rival total Gripen E production for 10 years.

YIMBY wrote:

Have the issues of F-35 related to runway performance and operation in arctic conditions been solved? Maybe Norway may tell soon.

I'm not aware of any runway performance issues in arctic conditions, can you provide a link that indicates such?

They are testing the F-35 at Eielson before it permenantly locates there in a couple of years.



You can see the drag chute housing on the upper rear of the F-35 in the above image that Norway will use.

As for severe weather testing.

Bell at the time said the F-35 program has been the one of the most expensive programs tested in the lab to date. There’s a very wide range of what testing costs, but prices estimate to roughly $25,000 a day, he said.

It was roughly $7 million to test the B model from the Patuxent River Integrated Test Force, Maryland, over a six month period, Bell said.

The Lightning II was put through major weather — the lab can do everything but lightning strikes and tornadoes — such as wind, solar radiation, fog, humidity, rain intrusion/ingestion, freezing rain, icing cloud, icing build-up, vortex icing and snow, said Friedman.

It handled temperatures ranging from 120 degrees Fahrenheit to -40 degrees.

Additionally, because of its vertical lift capabilities the Marine Corp’s F-35 was difficult to test, Bell said.

https://www.defensetech.org/2017/11/27/ ... ng-alaska/

YIMBY wrote:

Do they still prefer twin engined aircraft?

The RCAF doesn't have an issue operating the F-35, it remains their preference of all the options.

Ozair wrote:

I'm not aware of any runway performance issues in arctic conditions, can you provide a link that indicates such?

The runway issue is general and not relieved in the arctic. See e.g.

RAAF: Facilities Requirements for the New Air Combat Capability.
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=254100

- Your ministry of defence recommends 10 000 ft runway for F-35A in training, otherwise 8000 ft.

Even though rules can be relaxed at war (which we use to disagree) F-35A still remains far from 800 m that most of its contenders reach, unless they have found some tricks to improve it.
Canada has few airfields that satisfy the runway requirement, particularly the far north stations.

Of course, Canada and Australia are not that dependant to be able to use their fighters from any road strip than front line Europe where all major airports may be destroyed within day one.

leghorn wrote:

was coming here to post the same news
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cana ... DZ2W2?il=0

That should soften their cough a little.

At best how many years could Canada RCAF get out of the RAAF F-18s?

YIMBY wrote:

The runway issue is general and not relieved in the arctic. See e.g.
- Your ministry of defence recommends 10 000 ft runway for F-35A in training, otherwise 8000 ft.

That specific 10,000ft requirement is primarily related to noise abatement. A longer take-off at lesser thrust reduces the noise footprint which is important for trainig operations IVO semi urban bases.

YIMBY wrote:

Even though rules can be relaxed at war (which we use to disagree) F-35A still remains far from 800 m that most of its contenders reach, unless they have found some tricks to improve it.
Canada has few airfields that satisfy the runway requirement, particularly the far north stations.

Of course, Canada and Australia are not that dependant to be able to use their fighters from any road strip than front line Europe where all major airports may be destroyed within day one.

The 800m for any of the fighter aircraft in service today is not with a max payload. The F-35A has demonstrated the ability to take off from 800m of less and the F-35B clearly has the ability to use a less than 800m strip. Any 800m takeoff distance for all fighter aircraft is dependent upon a number of factors including payload (fuel and weapons) and atmospheric conditions.