 Military sees F-35’s stealth as way to assert sovereignty Canada needs stealth fighter jets so its military can sneak up on an adversary at the edges of domestic airspace and use that potential for surprise as a deterrent, the head of the air force says.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
“Who knows 50 years from now? Who knows what the North Koreans will be up to? The Iranians?” he said.
So we're buying these planes to operate for 30 to 40 years just in case the North Koreans or Iranians develop something 50 years from now? What good will they do us if they've already been in the boneyard for a decade?
Sounds to me like he just invalidated his argument for buying these planes...
* Sarcasm off
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that even with ET's the radar signature is still much smaller than any comparable fighter.
And your basis for this is...where?
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that even with ET's the radar signature is still much smaller than any comparable fighter.
And your basis for this is...where?
The fact that it was designed to have an RCS the size of a golf ball.
Are you going to try to convince me that there is a competing fighter (the F-22 isn't in the running) that can boast a smaller RCS?
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that even with ET's the radar signature is still much smaller than any comparable fighter.
And your basis for this is...where?
The fact that it was designed to have an RCS the size of a golf ball.
Are you going to try to convince me that there is a competing fighter (the F-22 isn't in the running) that can boast a smaller RCS?
Smaller? Perhaps not. More then adequate? Yes.
Two U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets fly a combat patrol over Afghanistan in 2008. The aircraft banking away in the background can be seen launching infra-red countermeasure flares.
The F/A-18E/F's radar cross section was reduced greatly from some aspects, mainly the front and rear. The design of the engine inlets reduces the aircraft's frontal radar cross section. The alignment of the leading edges of the engine inlets is designed to scatter radiation to the sides. Fixed fanlike reflecting structures in the inlet tunnel divert radar energy away from the rotating fan blades.
The Super Hornet also makes considerable use of panel joint serration and edge alignment. Considerable attention has been paid to the removal or filling of unnecessary surface join gaps and resonant cavities. Where the F/A-18A-D used grilles to cover various accessory exhaust and inlet ducts, the F/A-18E/F uses perforated panels that appear opaque to radar waves at the frequencies used. Careful attention has been paid to the alignment of many panel boundaries and edges, to scatter traveling waves away from the aircraft.
It is claimed that the Super Hornet employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the F-22 and F-35. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a frontal RCS an order of magnitude smaller than prior generation fighters.
Smaller? Perhaps not. More then adequate? Yes.
Two U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets fly a combat patrol over Afghanistan in 2008. The aircraft banking away in the background can be seen launching infra-red countermeasure flares.
The F/A-18E/F's radar cross section was reduced greatly from some aspects, mainly the front and rear. The design of the engine inlets reduces the aircraft's frontal radar cross section. The alignment of the leading edges of the engine inlets is designed to scatter radiation to the sides. Fixed fanlike reflecting structures in the inlet tunnel divert radar energy away from the rotating fan blades.
The Super Hornet also makes considerable use of panel joint serration and edge alignment. Considerable attention has been paid to the removal or filling of unnecessary surface join gaps and resonant cavities. Where the F/A-18A-D used grilles to cover various accessory exhaust and inlet ducts, the F/A-18E/F uses perforated panels that appear opaque to radar waves at the frequencies used. Careful attention has been paid to the alignment of many panel boundaries and edges, to scatter traveling waves away from the aircraft.
It is claimed that the Super Hornet employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the F-22 and F-35. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a frontal RCS an order of magnitude smaller than prior generation fighters.
Interesting read, but if we want to know exactly what is considered "adequate" we should ask someone at Air Command.
Interesting read, but if we want to know exactly what is considered "adequate" we should ask someone at Air Command.
Sure. Of course we can also ask all the departments what is on their wish list too.
Almost all the talk about Canadian defence of late has been arctic sovereignty. The F18E is simply a better plane for long range patrol/interdiction type missions. Add to that we could get 2 or 3 times as many fighters at the same price. In addition, we could get a deal to build them here under contract which would return perhaps 1/3 (or more) of the money into the economy. I think we could easily get that deal if we bought say 120-130. These planes will also last 30 years and Boeing is working on the next gen in the class also so upgrades will be available.
If Canada wants an effective border patrol then we need hulls and planes and if we want to be able to afford it we need smaller unit prices at the least decrease in capability we can achieve.
Interesting read, but if we want to know exactly what is considered "adequate" we should ask someone at Air Command.
Sure. Of course we can also ask all the departments what is on their wish list too.
Almost all the talk about Canadian defence of late has been arctic sovereignty. The F18E is simply a better plane for long range patrol/interdiction type missions. Add to that we could get 2 or 3 times as many fighters at the same price. In addition, we could get a deal to build them here under contract which would return perhaps 1/3 (or more) of the money into the economy. I think we could easily get that deal if we bought say 120-130. These planes will also last 30 years and Boeing is working on the next gen in the class also so upgrades will be available.
If Canada wants an effective border patrol then we need hulls and planes and if we want to be able to afford it we need smaller unit prices at the least decrease in capability we can achieve.
If we ditch Lockheed Martin and go with Boeing there is no guarantee we would see anymore than the 65 airframes that we intend to order now.
I'd like to see Boeing make an offer. They haven't had much luck exporting their red headed stepchild.
That's like Homeowners who put up 'Beware of Dog' signs up but don't actually have a dog, thinking it has the same effect. The problem is observing the house for a day will tell the casual observer that there is no dog (i.e. dog never goes outside; dog never gets taken out for a walk; etc). F-35 may be "invisible" to radar but it's not to spy satellites, which can monitor when planes are on the ground the when they're not. A deterrent needs to be real and needs to be visible. Would police be of any use as a deterrent to crime if the police just stayed in the police station and only went out to respond to a crime?
I know that horse has been flogged to death, but when you see interceptions like the one last week (200+ miles north of Inuvik), it's exactly those kinds of missions where two engines are a nice luxury. sure, plane engines don't die on every trip, but if one does go out, on the F-35, we'll likely lose the pilot and the plane, whereas the Super Hornet and its pilot will probably make it back to Yellowknife safe and sound.
The biggest advantage the Super Hornet has over the F-35 is that it has two engines.
That is about the advantage the Super Bug has over the F-35, besides sticker price.
No ejection seats on the F-35?
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that even with ET's the radar signature is still much smaller than any comparable fighter.
And your basis for this is...where?
The fact that it was designed to have an RCS the size of a golf ball.
Are you going to try to convince me that there is a competing fighter (the F-22 isn't in the running) that can boast a smaller RCS?
Again, what good does a small RCS do if you increase the signature with external fuel tanks? I want what's best for the Canadian Forces, not what's shiny and new and popular. It's a single-engine aircraft, that is ridiculously expensive, has been plagued by development problems and wasn't even put in a competitive bid. That's what I hate most about this; no other aircraft were given the chance.
The biggest advantage the Super Hornet has over the F-35 is that it has two engines.
That is about the advantage the Super Bug has over the F-35, besides sticker price.
No ejection seats on the F-35?
It's more about dealing the vast expanses of hostile wilderness in this country.