[Newsbot]

Title: DND to recommend sole-source aircraft purchase to replace Canada�s CF-18
Category: Military
Posted By: WDHIII
Date: 2009-08-22 09:35:04
Canadian

[Canadian_Mind]

If they only cost 50 million per unit, I'd say go full out and buy 150+ of the things, sole sourced or not, cause that is a hell of a deal. But I don't see the government having the balls to do that.

[sandorski]

JSF is freakin expensive and seems to be way more Fighter than is required at this point.

[Canadian_Mind]

Never prepare for the past or current war.

How much has the world changed politically over the past 10 years? The Cold war was over, there was no war on terror, China was very much on the backburner, etc.

Today the emerging threats are once again China and Russia, in addition to terrorist groups bent on leading a holy war against the west. Who knows which of those emerging threats will still be around in 10 years.

[BeaverFever]

Its actually considered to be highly inferior. For the price of the JSF, I don't think we get anything significantly better than Superhornets or Typhoons

$1:

This analysis by Pierre M. Spey, a key member of the F-16 and A-10 design teams, cast sharp doubt on the F-35’s capabilities:


Even without new problems, the F-35 is a ‘dog.’ If one accepts every performance promise the DoD currently makes for the aircraft, the F-35 will be: “Overweight and underpowered: at 49,500 lb (22,450kg) air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter…. [F-35A and F-35B variants] will have a ‘wing-loading’ of 108 lb per square foot…. less manoeuvrable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 ‘Lead Sled’ that got wiped out over North Vietnam…. payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs in its bomb bay…. With more bombs carried under its wings, the F-35 instantly becomes ‘non-stealthy’ and the DoD does not plan to seriously test it in this configuration for years. As a ‘close air support’... too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods…. What the USAF will not tell you is that ‘stealthy’ aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft…. As for the highly complex electronics to attack targets in the air, the F-35, like the F-22 before it, has mortgaged its success on a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based air-to-air combat that has fallen on its face many times in real air war. The F-35’s air-to-ground electronics promise little more than slicker command and control for the use of existing munitions.” http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

[saturn_656]

Alot of the negative publicity about the F-35 comes out of the pro F-22 camp, whose continued production is threatened by the F-35.

Beware of those with "angles".

[ridenrain]

The F22 and F35 are so very different aircraft I can't see getting them confused. I think the F22 is great but Canada could never afford to buy air superiority in the numbers required.

I was looking up the numbers on the engine failures for the CF18 and found this:

$1:

Service histories tend to support General Dynamics' thinking on the single vs. double engine issue. Of the twenty-seven losses or ejections from Canadian CF-18's, only one was due to engine failure, and that was in spite of the fact that only one engine failed.[13] There is also a single instance of a single-engine loss allowing the aircraft to return home successfully, although it was already in the process of landing at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighte ... ft_program

I think this addresses how the 2 engine issue is really a non issue.

[Canadian_Mind]

CF-18s have never (to my knowledge) been in dogfight, which I imagine would be a major cause of single-engine failure.

Regardless, the debate over what aircraft is right gets way out of my lane whn it comes down to nitty gritty details. I can only base my opinions on the fairly broad and easy to understand factors, like payload capacity, range, etc.

[Freakinoldguy]

ridenrain ridenrain:

The F22 and F35 are so very different aircraft I can't see getting them confused. I think the F22 is great but Canada could never afford to buy air superiority in the numbers required.

I was looking up the numbers on the engine failures for the CF18 and found this:

$1:

Service histories tend to support General Dynamics' thinking on the single vs. double engine issue. Of the twenty-seven losses or ejections from Canadian CF-18's, only one was due to engine failure, and that was in spite of the fact that only one engine failed.[13] There is also a single instance of a single-engine loss allowing the aircraft to return home successfully, although it was already in the process of landing at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighte ... ft_program

I think this addresses how the 2 engine issue is really a non issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the F22 wasn't for sale to other countries?

I think the reason we can get a deal on the F35 is that we were part of the consortium of countries that underwrotes it's development.

[ridenrain]

They were talking about selling the F22 to Japan but I doubt that will go anywhere.

[DrCaleb]

Wasn't the F-22 program effectively starved of funds? ie: there won't be any new F-22s?

[Winnipegger]

At only $50 million per unit in US dollars, that's the same price as a Eurofighter Typhoon. The Typhoon dramatically outperforms the F-35, so why would we want to buy F-35s?

The Typhoon has superior performance than even an F-22 in terms of thrust/weight ratio, climb rate, top speed, and weapons load. According to Global Security, top speed of the F-22 Raptor is mach 1.8 and ceiling of 60,000 feet, while the Typhoon can go mach 2+ (2,495km/h) with a ceiling of 65,000 feet. Wikipedia claims the Raptor can fly mach 2.25 and ceiling of 65,000 feet, but using the Global Security figures the Typhoon performs better. The Raptor's main advantage is stealth. But if Canada uses them for a show of force by escorting Tu-95 Bear bombers out of our air space, then stealth doesn't help. Stealth is useless if you show yourself and approach within the detection radius before even entering combat. Besides, the F-22 costs $165 million per unit.

If the opponent is Iran or other third world states, then they have F-15 Eagle and F-14 Tomcat fighters, as well as older Russian fighters. Any new fighter would defeat them: F-22 Raptor, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-35 JSF, or even the Dessault Rafale. The Rafale carries a heavier bomb load than the Typhoon, but dog fighting air performance isn't as good. However, a Rafale can still outperform an F-15 or F-14. The Rafale is a good bomb truck, and the carrier variant is the best performing carrier fighter in the world, but it costs even more than a Typhoon. The F-35C (Carrier Vessel variant) has better stealth than the Rafale, but air performance and bomb load are not nearly as good. But Canada doesn't have any carriers, and the Governor General just changed the colours of the navy to remove the anchor and wings of the eastern navy, removing any remaining reference to a carrier.

If our future opponent is a Non-Government Organization like al-Qaeda, then we don't need fighter planes at all, we need ground forces and helicopters.

Given all this, wouldn't we conclude that Canada's next fighter should be the Typhoon?

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

At only $50 million per unit in US dollars, that's the same price as a Eurofighter Typhoon. The Typhoon dramatically outperforms the F-35, so why would we want to buy F-35s?

The Typhoon has superior performance than even an F-22 in terms of thrust/weight ratio, climb rate, top speed, and weapons load. According to Global Security, top speed of the F-22 Raptor is mach 1.8 and ceiling of 60,000 feet, while the Typhoon can go mach 2+ (2,495km/h) with a ceiling of 65,000 feet. Wikipedia claims the Raptor can fly mach 2.25 and ceiling of 65,000 feet, but using the Global Security figures the Typhoon performs better. The Raptor's main advantage is stealth. But if Canada uses them for a show of force by escorting Tu-95 Bear bombers out of our air space, then stealth doesn't help. Stealth is useless if you show yourself and approach within the detection radius before even entering combat. Besides, the F-22 costs $165 million per unit.

If the opponent is Iran or other third world states, then they have F-15 Eagle and F-14 Tomcat fighters, as well as older Russian fighters. Any new fighter would defeat them: F-22 Raptor, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-35 JSF, or even the Dessault Rafale. The Rafale carries a heavier bomb load than the Typhoon, but dog fighting air performance isn't as good. However, a Rafale can still outperform an F-15 or F-14. The Rafale is a good bomb truck, and the carrier variant is the best performing carrier fighter in the world, but it costs even more than a Typhoon. The F-35C (Carrier Vessel variant) has better stealth than the Rafale, but air performance and bomb load are not nearly as good. But Canada doesn't have any carriers, and the Governor General just changed the colours of the navy to remove the anchor and wings of the eastern navy, removing any remaining reference to a carrier.

If our future opponent is a Non-Government Organization like al-Qaeda, then we don't need fighter planes at all, we need ground forces and helicopters.

Given all this, wouldn't we conclude that Canada's next fighter should be the Typhoon?

1) You can't buy a Typhoon for 50 million Euros much less 50 million dollars.

2) I'd trust wikipedia before global security. Not that wikipedia is "good" but GS is that bad.

3) No potential enemy states fly the F-15.

[SigPig]

I have said it before, for the money to capability ratio the Eurofighter is the best plane out there hands down. The JSF is an overpriced underperforming aircraft that we can't afford to get in sufficient numbers.

[Canadian_Mind]

Prices for the Typhoon will go down over the next 5-10 years.

Both Wikipedia and GS are wrong regarding the F-22. It has a cruising speed of mach 1.8 (which is faster than the JSF's overall top speed), and a top speed of mach 2.42. I dunno what the altitude figures are.

You are right regarding a lack of enemy states flying F-15s. But several fly Mig - 29 and SU - 27 series of aircraft. Both of which could outnumber and overwhelm a fleet of JSFs simply because once any JSFs in the air run out of munitions the Mig - 29s and SU - 27s can catch up to the JSF, and if they don't use missles, outmanuever the thing in a dogfight.

Again, I'm no expert on aircraft or stealth, but the ass end of a JSF has alot of edges, especially in and around the engine. In addition to that, the engine of the JSF is a fucking hot bastard, and I doubt there are systems in place to cool emissions. Many Russian aircraft have Infa-red detecting equipment, so while they can't shoot it down with radar-based missles, they can certinly track the damn thing when it turns tail and runs.

$1:

The Su-27 has an OLS-27 infrared search and track (IRST) system in the nose just forward of the cockpit with a 80-100km range[1], which also incorporates a laser rangefinder. This system can be slaved to the radar, or used independently for "stealthy" attacks with infrared missiles (such as the R-73 and R-27T/ET). It also controls the cannon, providing greater accuracy than a radar sighting mode.

Stolen from wiki.