F-35 JSF. Canada's new jet?

[Lineman]

Imagine a conflict where Canadian air assets are involved and we're flying Russian made aircraft. It is almost sure that the adversary will also be flying Russian aircraft. Let's say both sides are in need of some parts, and the Russians are politically closer to the adversary, would they actually treat both sides equally and send the parts to both sides? I'm pretty sure our airforce would not get the parts they need and would sit on the ground while someone else with western built fighters takes over in the skies above.
Since the beginning of the jet age in Korea American aircraft have been superior to anything the Russians (Soviets) have sent in the air. Russia rarely if ever develop any technology on their own (transport aircraft may be the exception) but prefer to steal it from others, reverse engineer it and try to make improvements. Therefore they are always a step or two or three behind the curve. think back to where any Russian aircraft in any conflict has been superior to an American product. At best they can claim that in Vietnam for a while their MIGs were equal to American F4s but after a few adjustments such as simply adding a gun pod the MIG's fell behind again.
American and European aircraft are the only acceptable replacements.

 

[coldstream]

Our best bet is to stick with American planes. We have a deep relationship with the American aircraft companies since the 1950s. Why leave that and buy the Eurofighter when right next door, the yanks have aircraft that can fully meet our requirements? The F-15 Eagle has the range and costs 34 million dollars. The Eurofighter doesn't even have half the range and costs 122.5 million dollars. Thats over three times the price of the F-15!

Forget about Russian planes, we'll never get them in our lifetime. Despite my love of the Fulcrum and Flanker family.

The F-15 is in fact older than the F-18, the first being delivered in the mid 1970's. It is at or near the end of its production run, having been replaced in the U.S. arsenal by the the F-22. The plane was in fact considered during the last purchase, but was outdone by the F-18's flexilbility and multi purpose capability.

 

[Lineman]

Canada has tried to find 1 aircraft to fulfill all the missions the air force can be asked to do. The F-18 came as close as any aircraft to doing that. It may be time to re-examine this all for one requirement and look at splitting those requirements over two or even 3 different types of airframes.
First and foremost would be the defense of Canada and it's airspace. No other airplane comes close to the F22 in its ability to do this. A brand new fresh off the line F15 may be the best second option and the third in my opinion is the Super Hornet.
Second would be international deployments. Air superiority will likely be obtained by our allies as we will not likely deploy alone and would leave the limited amount of F22's at home. So support of our ground troops would be second requirement and a plane which can take a good bomb payload and still do strafing runs would be the next choice. The best option to me would be an Attack helicopter such as th Cobra or Apache in tandem with either the BAE Hawk, or preferably the Super Hornet.
Third is a capability Canada is just starting to develop and that would be to support expeditionary forces. If we're to park some ships off shore or in a captured port there needs to be air assets to support the operation. This is the only place where I see the F35 as an option.The STOVL variant would foot the bill.

The F35 is being sold as the next best multi-option aircraft but even it has 3 different modelss. The price itself should be reason enough to consider other options.

 

[darkbeaver]

Why do we need airplanes again?

 

[#juan]

Russian and technology in the same sentence, that's funny!

If you think the Russians don't have the technology to produce great aircraft you are badly mistaken. Who currenly makes the world's biggest cargo aircraft? The link is to a demo of a Russian fighter that outflies just about anything out there, including the F-22

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1994695142386399860

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/757708/worlds_biggest_military_aircraft/

 

[lone wolf]

Imagine a conflict where Canadian air assets are involved and we're flying Russian made aircraft. It is almost sure that the adversary will also be flying Russian aircraft. Let's say both sides are in need of some parts, and the Russians are politically closer to the adversary, would they actually treat both sides equally and send the parts to both sides? I'm pretty sure our airforce would not get the parts they need and would sit on the ground while someone else with western built fighters takes over in the skies above.
Since the beginning of the jet age in Korea American aircraft have been superior to anything the Russians (Soviets) have sent in the air. Russia rarely if ever develop any technology on their own (transport aircraft may be the exception) but prefer to steal it from others, reverse engineer it and try to make improvements. Therefore they are always a step or two or three behind the curve. think back to where any Russian aircraft in any conflict has been superior to an American product. At best they can claim that in Vietnam for a while their MIGs were equal to American F4s but after a few adjustments such as simply adding a gun pod the MIG's fell behind again.
American and European aircraft are the only acceptable replacements.

Even if the money doesn't do the talking, do you really think Canada is incapable of reverse engineering a parts supply? If it's that second-rate, it should be an easy thing to do. Have you studied up on contra-rotation in helicopters? Uncle Sam can't master it. Russia has.

Maybe you hadn't noticed, but USN had to start Top Gun schools because those North Korean and North Vietnamese fighters were blowing Americans out of the skies at an alarming rate - which really became terrifying to the pilot who came up against a "honcho" - a combat experiencd Chinese or Russian. Measure up the punishment a MiG could take over its technically-superior counterpart.

If America would come up with something that doesn't rely on computers to keep it in the sky - or the fight, doesn't need a fully-equipped airfield with glassy smooth runways to support it, and can take off and go into battle on the same tank of gas, they would have designed the perfect airplane for Canadian needs.

 

[Lineman]

If you think the Russians don't have the technology to produce great aircraft you are badly mistaken. Who currenly makes the world's biggest cargo aircraft? The link is to a demo of a Russian fighter that outflies just about anything out there, including the F-22

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1994695142386399860

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/757708/worlds_biggest_military_aircraft/

When it gets shot out of the sky by an F22 that's 150 kilometers away all those maneuvers don't mean a thing. Nothing but nothing on this planet can outfly and outfight the F22. I do have to tip my hat to their huge transports it's too bad there not in production anymore. One does have to wonder however when they're contracted to fly equipment for Canada but we won't allow them to transport personnel.

 

[Lineman]

Even if the money doesn't do the talking, do you really think Canada is incapable of reverse engineering a parts supply?

Then why bother purchasing Russian built at all when we would have warehouses full of parts for American built aircraft just across the border?

Maybe you hadn't noticed, but USN had to start Top Gun schools because those North Korean and North Vietnamese fighters were blowing Americans out of the skies at an alarming rate - which really became terrifying to the pilot who came up against a "honcho" - a combat experienced Chinese or Russian. Measure up the punishment a MiG could take over its technically-superior counterpart.

Yes you're right, the Americans were caught unprepared at the start of the war.(The US seems to repeat this cycle of complacency and arrogance every decade or so) But it didn't take long for them to make adaptations and corrections with the result being MIGs not even leaving their ground bases for fear of being destroyed.

If America would come up with something that doesn't rely on computers to keep it in the sky - or the fight, doesn't need a fully-equipped airfield with glassy smooth runways to support it, and can take off and go into battle on the same tank of gas, they would have designed the perfect airplane for Canadian needs.

Aircraft design has progressed to the point where pilots can't physically make the aircraft do what it is capable. G force limits piloted aircraft to whatever the pilot can withstand. However, the options you mention come closest to being in the SAAB Grippen. Range is what limits it as the principle design requirement was to defend the hundreds of miles of Swedish airspace and not the thousands of miles of Canadian.

 

[coldstream]

Why do we need airplanes again?

To protect our sovereignty!!!

 

[lone wolf]

To protect our sovereignty!!!

Heck! Isn't that why we got all the waterfront? Sovereignty? First, we need identity....

Woof!

 

[darkbeaver]

To protect our sovereignty!!!

Ohhh, our sovereignty, that was signed away quite a while ago wasn't it? SPP/NAU/ALREADYGONE

 

[Starscream]

I seriously doubt our gov. will pay 100 million plus dollars for ONE plane. We have to look at price, parts availability, and capabilities. We do not have the defense budget the U.S. has and we have to keep that in mind. The F-22 is absolutely out of the question. Even the F-35 is in doubt. Just because the U.S.A.F. is replacing the F-15 family (except the Strike Eagle) doesn't mean the Eagle is no good. It just means the U.S. aimed for stealth aircraft in their furture fleet, and they can afford it.

I see some talk that a "all in one" plane may be split into a air superiority fighter and a ground strike plane. I like the F/A aspect since it gives you capabilities in both roles, but seperating them into two specialized roles opens up new options for our air force. But should go this route?

 

[Canaduh]

I seriously doubt our gov. will pay 100 million plus dollars for ONE plane. We have to look at price, parts availability, and capabilities. We do not have the defense budget the U.S. has and we have to keep that in mind. The F-22 is absolutely out of the question. Even the F-35 is in doubt. Just because the U.S.A.F. is replacing the F-15 family (except the Strike Eagle) doesn't mean the Eagle is no good. It just means the U.S. aimed for stealth aircraft in their furture fleet, and they can afford it.

I see some talk that a "all in one" plane may be split into a air superiority fighter and a ground strike plane. I like the F/A aspect since it gives you capabilities in both roles, but seperating them into two specialized roles opens up new options for our air force. But should go this route?

After a certain amount of years it actually costs more to keep the aging F15/F18 serviced than it would to replace them.

 

[darkbeaver]

After a certain amount of years it actually costs more to keep the aging F15/F18 serviced than it would to replace them.

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to forget about fighter aircraft altogether?

 

[Canaduh]

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to forget about fighter aircraft altogether?

Its like protective padding in sports. Although you may never get injured without it on, its better to be safe and have it just incase.

 

[darkbeaver]

Its like protective padding in sports. Although you may never get injured without it on, its better to be safe and have it just incase.

Yes I can see the defence rational and in a shallow examination it makes sence but the most likely adversaries are also our arms suppliers of choice and this makes no sence at all. We would do better in our defencive efforts to develope counter measures to US imperial annexation if we employed chemical and nerve agents in a preemptive manner.

 

[Canaduh]

Yes I can see the defence rational and in a shallow examination it makes sence but the most likely adversaries are also our arms suppliers of choice and this makes no sence at all. We would do better in our defencive efforts to develope counter measures to US imperial annexation if we employed chemical and nerve agents in a preemptive manner.

- America annexed Canada along time ago
- Developing new chemical and biological weapons is against the Geneva ( and probly a few other) convention.

 

[Starscream]

After a certain amount of years everything gets more expensive to maintain, not just jet aircraft. As the F-35 and F-22 age how much do we think it'll cost to maintain these planes? Parts for stealth aircraft are way more expensive than conventional aircraft parts, and maintaining stealth aircraft requires much more attention and more frequently. As much as I like the F-35 and F-22, I believe we should stick with conventional jets.

 

[#juan]

Here is a look at four of the new fighters. The F-22 might have better weapons but the SU-37 appears to be the best fighter of them all.

http://blog.flightstory.net/129/video-f-22-raptor-vs-su-37-vs-su-30-vs-eurofighter-typhoon/

 

[#juan]

As someone said, The F-22 is not stealth with exterior fuel tanks and without them it doesn't have as much range. I like the F-22 but the SU-37 and SU-30 appear to be much more maneuverable. The whole package is what counts. The American armament on the SU-37 might be hard to beat.but it wouldn't have the EWACS laying out the battlefield for it.