Alternatives to F 35- no holds barred and no F-35 stuff please

[shedofdread]

I hate to dampen enthusiasm but a recent conversation with a fairly senior type from one of the 'primes' turned to why A/C cost so much these days versus ones from the 'good old days' and his response was that the airframe is the cheap bit and it's the onboard systems and engine(s) that account for the price rise.

Sorry....

 

[Avimimus]

I hate to dampen enthusiasm but a recent conversation with a fairly senior type from one of the 'primes' turned to why A/C cost so much these days versus ones from the 'good old days' and his response was that the airframe is the cheap bit and it's the onboard systems and engine(s) that account for the price rise.

Sorry....

Yes, but if we're willing to use less optimised engines ...and an airframe that can only pull 4 Gs and is tailless it should count for at least a few million, shouldn't it?

Just aim for 3rd/4th Gen technology in a few places... (while giving the thing a 5th gen radar and RAM spray)

 

[LowObservable]

Since nobody in his right mind is going to propose a big, delta-wing aircraft with 2 x 30klb thrust engines and a sizable internal weapons bay...

 

[RyanC]

Actually, now that you think about it -- the size of the PAK-FA and J-20 make sense -- if the main threat is the US spamming thousands of cheap munitions from well beyond SAM range from various carrier aircraft; then you need something with long range and endurance to engage the munitions carrying aircraft as far away from your borders, hopefully before they can release their weapons.

 

[GTX]

It would give us a long range patrol and strike capability over the arctic...

Why?

 

[Johnbr]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/09/avro-arrow-redesign-pitched-as-alternative-to-f-35-stealth-fighter-jets/
Got this from my cousin today.
The federal government is being urged to reach back in history for a made-in-Canada solution to its fighter jet woes by resurrecting the legendary but aborted Avro Arrow interceptor to serve as this country’s next war plane.
It may seem a far-fetched idea but backers – including retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie – insist that a revised version of the 1950s jet, with an upgraded engine, would outperform Ottawa’s preferred choice on several important counts.More Related to this Story

• Economy LabWhat the Avro Arrow should have taught Ottawa about the F-35
• EvictionVet considers Toronto's imperilled air museum a monument to war heroes

The revive-the-Avro campaign is the latest bizarre twist in a military purchase that’s gone awry on the Harper government’s watch.
The Conservatives, embarrassed by the rising costs of the U.S.-designed F-35 Lightning jets that the Royal Canadian Air Force sorely wants to purchase, are currently rethinking options for a next generation fighter.
Mr. MacKenzie and a group of design, engineering and logistics experts are pressing Ottawa to consider the long-discarded CF-105 plane.
The Diefenbaker government famously cancelled the Avro Arrow project in 1959, ending work on a Canadian aerospace marvel that supporters called the most advanced aircraft of its time.
Many in the Canadian aviation community never forgave Ottawa for scrapping the sleek, white plane, particularly after the government went on to buy U.S.-made Voodoo jets instead.
Proponents of reviving the Arrow are shopping a proposal around Ottawa that promises 120 planes for $9-billion, a number that just happens to be the government’s original cost estimate for the increasingly expensive F-35 jets.
Each new CF-105, they say, would cost $73-million to produce – a homegrown solution that would also create a domestic supersonic jet manufacturing capacity.
It’s hard to imagine a 53-year-old plane could outperform Lockheed Martin’s costly new F-35 fighter-bomber, but those behind a new CF-105 say their jet would pack a 21st-century punch.
Mr. MacKenzie said the proposal he’s put before the Harper government is for a made-in-Canada plane that could fly twice as fast as the F-35 and up to 20,000 feet higher. It would feature an updated Mark III engine and its range would be two to three times that of the F-35.
The former soldier, an unpaid supporter of the project, has run the pitch by Defence Minister Peter MacKay, senior defence officials as well as the Prime Minister’s Office and Julian Fantino when he was associate defence minister in charge of procurement.
Mr. MacKenzie said he’s met resistance in Ottawa, where officials insist they want the stealth capabilities that the F-35 can provide. Supporters of bringing back the CF-105, however, say the updated Arrow’s capabilities would make up for this because it could fly so much higher and faster.
One senior government source who’s reviewed the Avro backers’ pitch expressed deep skepticism about their business plan.
“[It] didn’t make a lot of sense to me,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Marc Bourdeau, a former Canadian public servant spearheading the CF-105 proposal, rejects the notion this is a pipe dream.
“This is not an exercise in nostalgia. This is an exercise in defence and industrial policy for Canada.”
Mr. MacKenzie said the new CF-105 would look like its predecessor but comparisons would end there.
“We are talking about a basic design that was tested and proven .… It will be recognizable in shape but it won’t be recognizable beyond that, given new technology and materials.”
Mr. MacKenzie, who is disappointed by the F-35, and in particular its capacity to intercept threats, said backers are taking their proposal to Canadians to see if there’s public pressure that can be brought to bear on the Harper government.

 

[Triton]

Are South Korea and Indonesia the only countries interested in the KAI K-FX/I-FX fighter aircraft program? Could further countries choose not to purchase the Lockheed Martin F-35 in favor of the KAI K-FX/I-FX?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I hate to dampen enthusiasm but a recent conversation with a fairly senior type from one of the 'primes' turned to why A/C cost so much these days versus ones from the 'good old days' and his response was that the airframe is the cheap bit and it's the onboard systems and engine(s) that account for the price rise.
)
Sorry.... :'(

That cant be!! Now what will do with my plan to reseruct the spitfire for the 21st century? :'(

Im pretty sure the people who suggest " just upgrading X" are the same people who think getting your ex-wife a facelift, a nose job, and a six week cooking course makes her their "sexy, new, culinary-gifted young girlfriend!"

All the money you spent on upgrading the old old lady, could be spent getting you a newer, easier, girlfriend with those features already built in.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

“We are talking about a basic design that was tested and proven .…

my definition of tested and proven seems to differ from the Arrow history I have read.

It will be recognizable in shape but it won’t be recognizable beyond that, given new technology and materials.”

So unproven where it will compete against the F-35 and where the cost will escalate most rapidly. And its the size of a house with an RCS that is a signal flare?

I have to hand it to these guys. this takes some brass ones. Its one thing to sell the upgrade of a 1970s era combat proven war winner like the F-15 with serial production in the thousands, and another to sell an aircraft that never even went into service from the 1950's and call it "proven". Bravo. Bravo.

This is like trying to sell magic beans, that you aren't even sure are beans but they seemed like magic 60 years ago.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The big problem I see is that Canada no longer has an aerospace industry basically to speak of.

By aerospace industry, I mean large companies capable of pulling together a large, disparate project like a large combat aircraft within budget and schedule.

but once they get passed all that, you know setting up an entire industry from scratch after years and god knows how much money --think of how much 9 billion will get them! Think of the savings!! I think the best part will be having an aircraft they couldn't give away for export, so the entire things would be funded, supported, and used only by Canada. no help whatsoever, from anyone else. and in the end you don't really "save" because you are still spending 9 billion anyway! You just get more versions of an aircraft that relies on performance long since surpassed. In other words, the longest route possible to arrive at a fourth generation level interceptor.

It would give us a long range patrol and strike capability over the arctic...

Why?

For when Canada goes to kick Russia's butt all by itself.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As for the other stuff; keep in mind that the F-16 family is starting to hit it's limits for future growth -- why else are the F-16E/F Blk 60 covered in bulgy CFTs and suchlike? The Blk 60s also top out at about 12 tonnes of payload (fuel/weapons), wheareas a stock Super Hornet's payload is 17 tonnes.

The F-16 is covered in lumps and bumps because the USAF didn't think to create a "super Viper" that is basically a completely new aircraft, as the navy did with the hornet. If there was no Super Hornet you would see F-18A-Ds covered in lumps and bumps.

F-16s are still faster and seeing as performance is going to be needed and seems to be all important when comparing the JSF to other aircraft. and all "ultra hornet" plans see the F-18E/F covered in the same lumps and bumps as well. Why would would the USAF want "more mouths to feed" of an aircraft that doesn't offer a boost other than an electronic capability it does not feel it requires?

Whats to stop the USAF from making a "super Viper" F135 equipped, enlarged, for all intents and purposes New Viper?

And the USAF doesn't feel it requires Growlers anymore than the USN feels it requires C-17s, KC-135s, and E-3 AWACs.

 

[quellish]

What happens when it's simply cheap enough to throw sub-million dollar cruise missiles with ranges long enough (several hundred kilometers), that prevent the launching platforms from being engaged by defending SAM systems?

"Part of the significance of the munitions use data from Desert Storm is that it reveals patterns of use when perfect BDA does not exist. For example, we found in Desert Storm that multiple strikes and weapon systems were used against the same targets; more munitions were delivered than peacetime test capabilities would indicate as necessary; determinations of whether target objectives were met were frequently unknown; and when objectives were met, the specific system responsible could not be determined."

You end up hitting the same targets over and over because your BDA problem got a lot tougher.

 

[SpudmanWP]

One of the features of EODAS is always-on realtime BDA.


Check this vid starting at 7:30

http://youtu.be/T5YOffkw0_I?t=7m30s


It shows how EODAS can change perspective (A2G) for BDA. EOTS can also do BDA, but the F-35's aspect to the target may inhibit it's view.

 

[Avimimus]

The big problem I see is that Canada no longer has an aerospace industry basically to speak of.

By aerospace industry, I mean large companies capable of pulling together a large, disparate project like a large combat aircraft within budget and schedule.

but once they get passed all that, you know setting up an entire industry from scratch after years and god knows how much money --think of how much 9 billion will get them! Think of the savings!! I think the best part will be having an aircraft they couldn't give away for export, so the entire things would be funded, supported, and used only by Canada. no help whatsoever, from anyone else. and in the end you don't really "save" because you are still spending 9 billion anyway! You just get more versions of an aircraft that relies on performance long since surpassed. In other words, the longest route possible to arrive at a fourth generation level interceptor.

At least most of the investment is kept in-Country.

There is also a tangible advantage over 4th generation designs: The airframe can be kept cheaper (eg. it is a tailless design), and it is possible to have competitive bids on the engines and on the avionics (with a broad selection of 4.5+ options). In the end you wind up with a design roughly comparable to the J-20 (although perhaps with a smaller payload).

It would give us a long range patrol and strike capability over the arctic...

Why?

For when Canada goes to kick Russia's butt all by itself.

It is simpler actually: being able to project force over the Arctic - without relying on allies - reinforces claims to Arctic Sovereignty.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

There is also a tangible advantage over 4th generation designs: The airframe can be kept cheaper (eg. it is a tailless design), and it is possible to have competitive bids on the engines and on the avionics (with a broad selection of 4.5+ options). In the end you wind up with a design roughly comparable to the J-20 (although perhaps with a smaller payload).

How is it cheaper to restart an entire industry from scratch again? I need the blueprint for this.

It is simpler actually: being able to project force over the Arctic - without relying on allies - reinforces claims to Arctic Sovereignty.

Thats so cute.

But of course Canada has been fighting all over the world for the last century, and not one of those places has been the arctic. The Canadian Military deploys A LOT, for some reason Canadians are obsessed with defending the Arctic because it makes them feel like big boys again, when in reality they are performing strikes in places like Libya and deploying in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of troops, where the men are slugging it out. The Canadians are great troops!! And the Arrow won't even help them. there is a reason the Generals want the F-35.

Everyone is laughing at this except for some nostalgic Canadians who aren't in on the joke. This of course, makes it even funnier.

 

[RyanC]

Whats to stop the USAF from making a "super Viper" F135 equipped, enlarged, for all intents and purposes New Viper?

The same thing that makes the "2,400 F-35s will be bought by the USA" a fantasy, our impending budgetary crisis. No matter who wins in November, DoD is on the chopping block, along with a lot of other stuff. F-18E/F Block II basically can be made USAF ready with the alteration of the fuel system/refuelling system to take the higher pressure USAF boom refuelling system -- that will cost money, but not as much as a Super Viper.

 

[RyanC]

You end up hitting the same targets over and over because your BDA problem got a lot tougher.

This may have been a problem in 1991, with the paucity of precision munitions, where they were major assets, but not in 2012, where you can fire off scores of highly precise weapons with moderate ranges for the cost of a single marquee weapon from 1991 and smother the target in weapons.

Additionally, weapons are getting smarter. The UK/French Storm Shadow is going to have real-time bomb damage assessment spiralled into it; allowing the launching aircraft to see what the missile is about to hit; or what earlier missiles have hit, along with in-flight real time re-targeting based on that rBDA.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

You end up hitting the same targets over and over because your BDA problem got a lot tougher.

This may have been a problem in 1991, with the paucity of precision munitions, where they were major assets, but not in 2012, where you can fire off scores of highly precise weapons with moderate ranges for the cost of a single marquee weapon from 1991 and smother the target in weapons.

Additionally, weapons are getting smarter. The UK/French Storm Shadow is going to have real-time bomb damage assessment spiralled into it; allowing the launching aircraft to see what the missile is about to hit; or what earlier missiles have hit, along with in-flight real time re-targeting based on that rBDA.

Cruise missiles like everything have their limitations. Its not a matter of out-economizing the enemy SAMs vs. Cruise missiles either.

Wars aren't fought on paper, and things may look simple with number comparisons but it only one small piece of large ever changing puzzle.

the USAF will never ever ever buy super hornets. EVER. If the f-35 got canceled, they would continue to upgrade their vipers (as they are already doing) and start work on the next 5th gen light fighter. Just because the DoD is on the chopping block doesn't mean the USAF is going to suddenly have no option but to buy a Naval aircraft brand new, that offers very little performance increase for the price of infrastructure (chopping block and all means they don't have that kind of money either). In short the juice wont be worth the squeeze.

The more likely option and the trend the USAF has been going with for years now, is to reduce aircraft numbers to get the smaller number of aircraft they want. half of the B-52s and all the F-117s retired to make room for F-22s for example.

 

[batigol]

The same thing that makes the "2,400 F-35s will be bought by the USA" a fantasy, our impending budgetary crisis. No matter who wins in November, DoD is on the chopping block, along with a lot of other stuff. F-18E/F Block II basically can be made USAF ready with the alteration of the fuel system/refuelling system to take the higher pressure USAF boom refuelling system -- that will cost money, but not as much as a Super Viper.

What about the Block 60 jet sold to the UAE. Would it be a realistic option for the Air Force? I understand that the Emirates paid a pretty penny for the development and would be entitled to royalties from any further production.

 

[quellish]

This may have been a problem in 1991, with the paucity of precision munitions, where they were major assets, but not in 2012, where you can fire off scores of highly precise weapons with moderate ranges for the cost of a single marquee weapon from 1991 and smother the target in weapons.

Additionally, weapons are getting smarter. The UK/French Storm Shadow is going to have real-time bomb damage assessment spiralled into it; allowing the launching aircraft to see what the missile is about to hit; or what earlier missiles have hit, along with in-flight real time re-targeting based on that rBDA.

I don't have the data handy, but it's been a continuing problem. It's even gotten worse in many ways with the use of small munitions like the many recent Hellfire variants. As some Hellfire warheads do not *obliterate* the target, BDA is still a problem.

In DESERT STORM, even with PGMs BDA was a major issue. Sensors, weather/environmental factors, altitude, and munitions effects were all contributing to the problem. Just like the above case with recent Hellfires, pilots often could not tell wether a target was already destroyed. IIRC General Horner has made a number of public statements to that effect as well during the 90s.

JASSM has a pre-strike camera like what you're describing, but my understanding is that it doesn't really solve the problem even if you double down on the number of missiles per target. I was able to talk to someone on the AF side of the program about that and other things a few years ago.

 

[GTX]

would be entitled to royalties from any further production.

You might be surprised

 

[Avimimus]

There is also a tangible advantage over 4th generation designs: The airframe can be kept cheaper (eg. it is a tailless design), and it is possible to have competitive bids on the engines and on the avionics (with a broad selection of 4.5+ options). In the end you wind up with a design roughly comparable to the J-20 (although perhaps with a smaller payload).

How is it cheaper to restart an entire industry from scratch again? I need the blueprint for this.

Not entirely dead - Canada makes business jets, composites and jet engines:
http://www.pwc.ca/
http://www.bombardier.com/

A large proportion of the funds would stay within the country (so you'd have a good 9 billion diverted into the Canadian economy, instead of the U.S. economy).

It is simpler actually: being able to project force over the Arctic - without relying on allies - reinforces claims to Arctic Sovereignty.

Thats so cute.

But of course Canada has been fighting all over the world for the last century, and not one of those places has been the arctic. The Canadian Military deploys A LOT, for some reason Canadians are obsessed with defending the Arctic because it makes them feel like big boys again, when in reality they are performing strikes in places like Libya and deploying in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of troops, where the men are slugging it out. The Canadians are great troops!! And the Arrow won't even help them. there is a reason the Generals want the F-35.

Everyone is laughing at this except for some nostalgic Canadians who aren't in on the joke. This of course, makes it even funnier.

[/quote]

We deploy a lot because we're colonials (think 'Roman Auxillery'). We make good shock troops.

As for the Arctic - it is important to have a visible presence (and a capability) in order to reinforce territorial claims over the relatively unpopulated islands of the far north (above Baffin Island) and the sea shelf (especially now that we're losing permanent sea ice).

As a close air support platform neither aircraft is ideal. The JSF may have an advantage in terms of optical avionics (at least over the 1950s Arrow). However, it is reasonable to expect than an Arrow would be on station faster and could deliver a comparable (or larger) bomb load. But, one can't really argue that the JSF is superior for CAS. The only exception is providing strike duty in an environment which has up-to-date surface to air systems (eg. S-300) where LO features may be important.

The reason why the generals want the JSF is largely because there is an assumption that we have to buy American (and the JSF may indeed be preferable to the Super Hornet or the F-15SE). Indigenous or European solutions aren't on the table (while the only aircraft that actually meet patrol requirements for Canada's North were designed for Sibera - ie. the Mig-31, Su-27/35, and PAK-FA).

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

A large proportion of the funds would stay within the country (so you'd have a good 9 billion diverted into the Canadian economy, instead of the U.S. economy).

Good things those two economies aren't joined at the hip. So the Canadians will spend how much to avoid 9 billion going to the Americans?

Have you even researched to see just how much money the JSF is bringing to Canada right now?

 

[Avimimus]

A large proportion of the funds would stay within the country (so you'd have a good 9 billion diverted into the Canadian economy, instead of the U.S. economy).

Good things those two economies aren't joined at the hip. So the Canadians will spend how much to avoid 9 billion going to the Americans?

Have you even researched to see just how much money the JSF is bringing to Canada right now?

You can make the argument both ways - a Canadian project would benefit American companies and an American project will benefit Canadian companies. However, it should be fairly obvious that things like competitive bidding or studying indigenous solutions can give more leverage in negotiating the workshare that our country gets (eg. in the JSF). We've done neither.

Similarly, we've allowed our trade to increasingly become North-South (rather than via our own ports). An indigenous solution that meets all of our major requirements as well as an imported one and helps restart home industries is an attractive idea. It is as simple as that.

The big question is whether having a twin-engined design is more desirable than a design that can easily navigate around the S-300 series of SAMs... that and whether our government would ever consider buying a European or Canadian fighter (rather than using only U.S. products as a matter of diplomacy and ideology). The answer to the first is probably "yes" (given typical uses of Canadian aircraft), the answer to the second is probably "no".

 

[Triton]

Is resuming Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor production a realistic possibility? Lockheed Martin has said that restarting the production line would cost $200 million. Perhaps Congress will reverse the ban on foreign sales and allow an F-22EX variant to be produced for Israel and Japan given the appearance of the Sukhoi T-50 and the Chengdu J-20? Have other countries expressed interest in purchasing the F-22? Saudi Arabia? South Korea?

Can the F-22 be used in the strike role? Would it require extensive and costly development and modification to be an adequate replacement for the F-15 Strike Eagle?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

An indigenous solution that meets all of our major requirements

But it doesn't meet the Canadian requirements.

So it essentially costs more, will take longer, and doesn't meet the requirements set by the military.

Where do I sign up?

 

[Avimimus]

An indigenous solution that meets all of our major requirements

But it doesn't meet the Canadian requirements.

So it essentially costs more, will take longer, and doesn't meet the requirements set by the military.

Where do I sign up?

On the dotted line, sir!

.........................

(Seriously, it doesn't have to cost as much and we don't know what the military requirements are - they weren't full set out when we went all-in on the F-35. Currently there is a lot of political pressure to massage any requirements to fit the F-35. So, it is only if we add a large delay in our purchase that we can find out the requirements. Besides, we can afford to wait a good 25 years to go 5th gen. Buy some trainers to maintain our capability once the CF-188s aren't safe anymore...)

 

[SpudmanWP]

Don't forget that to make the F-22 export friendly and to compensate for tech no longer available, it would likely take several $Billion.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

(Seriously, it doesn't have to cost as much and we don't know what the military requirements are - they weren't full set out when we went all-in on the F-35. Currently there is a lot of political pressure to massage any requirements to fit the F-35. So, it is only if we add a large delay in our purchase that we can find out the requirements. Besides, we can afford to wait a good 25 years to go 5th gen. Buy some trainers to maintain our capability once the CF-188s aren't safe anymore...)

What happens when you have to go to war? You go with trainers? 25 years? Thats an entire military career. You will actually have people join the air force and stay for decades and leave-- having never even set foot in or even worked on, a combat aircraft.

Since 1947, the Canadian Forces have completed 72 international missions. More than 3,600 soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel are deployed overseas on operational missions. On any given day, about 8,000 Canadian Forces members Canadian Forces Air Command, Canadian Forces Maritime Command, and Canadian Forces Land Force Command (one-third of the Canadian deployable force) are preparing for, engaged in or are returning from an overseas mission.

Most recently Libya, Where Canadian Hornets carried quite a work load.

Also what happens when ten years in to your "trainers only" plan the Arrow gets canceled (I know canceling the arrow sounds like something out of science fiction, but it could actually happen) and you throw away billions, are stuck with trainers, and can't buy actual combat aircraft?

Or it get canceled because "Hey you know what? Why are we spending billions developing a 5th gen fighter when these trainers seem to be doing fine? why waste money? Lets just upgrade the trainers!!"

Beware of "temporary" fixes that quickly turn into permanent solutions. I have heard from so many Canadians about how vital it is to protect the arctic RIGHT NOW and all of the sudden its... you know we can actually wait a couple decades. If this selfish plan were to go through (and luckily the canadian government has already said no thanks) I would hope that no help was asked from American warplanes when russian aircraft violate your territory because you were too busy trying to play "big boys" trying to prove to yourselves that you don't need American help!! ;D

How does it not cost as much if the entire rebuilding of the Canadian combat aircraft industry, which as you even say could take 25 years before fruition, is completely funded by the canadian taxpayer? At which point 100 percent of the aircraft are again bought by the Canadian government? Are their private investors somewhere I am not aware of?

 

[Avimimus]

I think you're getting close to the heart of my perspective: To patrol the Arctic we should really be investing in sub-sonic turbo-props.

There are a few roles which a turbo-propr would be unsuited for:
- Releasing anti-ship missiles against surface ships (especially if they have any form of air cover)
- Bombing targets in moderately well defended countries (Kosovo, Lybia).

The JSF would probably have to carry external fuel tanks & external cruise missiles for anti-ship duty, and it would also lack supercruise abilities. Low-observability is desirable for both tasks of course.

As for oversees missions: We did more than our fair share in the 20th century. With the JSF we couldn't really deploy unilaterally anyway - we'd always need regional allies and support from other NATO powers. We don't need to serve - at a practical level we can easily wait out a couple of decades and let the U.S. do most of the work.

Not saying it is fair, but it is a reality.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I think you're getting close to the heart of my perspective: To patrol the Arctic we should really be investing in sub-sonic turbo-props.

There are a few roles which a turbo-propr would be unsuited for:
- Releasing anti-ship missiles against surface ships (especially if they have any form of air cover)
- Bombing targets in moderately well defended countries (Kosovo, Lybia).

also this.

Or any kind of dogfighting or self defense.

The JSF would probably have to carry external fuel tanks & external cruise missiles for anti-ship duty, and it would also lack supercruise abilities. Low-observability is desirable for both tasks of course.

As for oversees missions: We did more than our fair share in the 20th century. With the JSF we couldn't really deploy unilaterally anyway - we'd always need regional allies and support from other NATO powers. We don't need to serve - at a practical level we can easily wait out a couple of decades and let the U.S. do most of the work.

Not saying it is fair, but it is a reality.

It's not just the US, Canada is committed to global alliances, and wouldn't be able to take part in coalitions. You aren't going to do anything unilaterally since it is alliance dependent anyway (remember the last time Canada went to war all by itself?), whether you are flying the JSF or some 100 percent Canadian aircraft.

So you are going to spend billions of dollars and decades of development for a super cruise aircraft you don't even need with the US doing all the heavy lifting in the meantime? why do you even need an air force then?

This is very confusing to me. It seems highly contradictory. If you have to have an air force with an american built fifth generation fighter then its not worth it. Better to develop a super cruise all Canadian version that will take 25 years to get into service? You would rather wait 25 years and have nothing realistic in the meantime?

A country without an air force building world class 5th generation fighters? Does this sound odd to anyone else? ???

 

[GTX]

The JSF would probably have to carry external fuel tanks & external cruise missiles for anti-ship duty, and it would also lack supercruise abilities. Low-observability is desirable for both tasks of course.

Not necessarily. There is the KDA Naval Strike Missile (NSM)/Joint Strike Missile (JSM), two of which are designed in its internal bays:

Though one might say that an anti-shipping mission that demands full LO is somewhat different than a patrol...

 

[SpudmanWP]

JSOW/JSOW-Er can also be carried internally in the F-35.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As for the other stuff; keep in mind that the F-16 family is starting to hit it's limits for future growth -- why else are the F-16E/F Blk 60 covered in bulgy CFTs and suchlike? The Blk 60s also top out at about 12 tonnes of payload (fuel/weapons), wheareas a stock Super Hornet's payload is 17 tonnes.

Can supercruise too

 

[Avimimus]

That's comforting GTX...

This is very confusing to me. It seems highly contradictory. If you have to have an air force with an american built fifth generation fighter then its not worth it. Better to develop a super cruise all Canadian version that will take 25 years to get into service? You would rather wait 25 years and have nothing realistic in the meantime?

Welcome to being Canadian...

I personally prefer investing in a STOLL transport / patrol aircraft, and a UAV directed surface-to-surface missiles...

The problem with the F-35 is that it represents new technologies, largely untested and which could possibly become dated. As a small country it is tempting to be conservative and try to find a way to make Gen 4.5 work well into the next century (at least until some of the 5th Gen concepts are validated in combat).

As for your skepticism about production: As I said earlier. We're talking about a strike aircraft with 3rd Generation aerodynamics, 4th Generation engines and 5th Generation avionics (bought off the lowest bidder) - with a light dusting of RAM... not perfect, but certainly more plausible for a smaller country to pull off.

Honestly, if we're going the single-engined, limited super-sonic performance route it would make about as much sense to buy the LCA for our needs...

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

That's comforting GTX...

This is very confusing to me. It seems highly contradictory. If you have to have an air force with an american built fifth generation fighter then its not worth it. Better to develop a super cruise all Canadian version that will take 25 years to get into service? You would rather wait 25 years and have nothing realistic in the meantime?

Welcome to being Canadian...

I personally prefer investing in a STOLL transport / patrol aircraft, and a UAV directed surface-to-surface missiles...

The problem with the F-35 is that it represents new technologies, largely untested and which could possibly become dated. As a small country it is tempting to be conservative and try to find a way to make Gen 4.5 work well into the next century (at least until some of the 5th Gen concepts are validated in combat).

As for your skepticism about production: As I said earlier. We're talking about a strike aircraft with 3rd Generation aerodynamics, 4th Generation engines and 5th Generation avionics (bought off the lowest bidder) - with a light dusting of RAM... not perfect, but certainly more plausible for a smaller country to pull off.

Honestly, if we're going the single-engined, limited super-sonic performance route it would make about as much sense to buy the LCA for our needs...

But isn't your 3rd gen, 4th gen, 5th gen concept just a tad unproven? I think this is the longest, hardest, most expensive path to a substandard aircraft that will be canceled before the first delivery. F-18s were unproven when Canada bought them too.

Paying people to dig holes and then paying others to fill them creates an industry too, but I couldnt tell you what the purpose was.

This reminds me of a little kid determined to make his own peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Even though the parents are there to make it better faster easier the kid breaks out the ingredients and covers himself and every nearby surface in peanut butter and sticky jelly but completely misses the torn balled up pieces of bread in his fists. total waste but hey the kid feels like a big boy.

 

[Avimimus]

But isn't your 3rd gen, 4th gen, 5th gen concept just a tad unproven? I think this is the longest, hardest, most expensive path to a substandard aircraft that will be canceled before the first delivery. F-18s were unproven when Canada bought them too.

Not really. The aerodynamics and structure reached the prototype stage and are very conservative designs by modern standards. The engines are already in service. The use of energy tactics to defeat BVR missiles is common. The design could be made as stealthy as a Eurocanard (without changing the structural layout). The core avionics could be bought later.

The stealthy, lower-performance, highly integrated fighting style of the F-35 assumes are large deployment with a wide array of support assets - not a few solitary flights of interceptors or strike aircraft (over a large area of space). A lot is also predicated on the lack of effective stealth countermeasures.

I can't think of one scenario where the F-35's unique talents would be useful in which it wouldn't be easier to just fund the United States to do it. In 90% of deployments a moderately low observable, high speed interceptor and strike platform would do as well or better. In the remaining 10% of deployments we could still help out - we'd just have to wait three or four days for most of the air-defense assets to be hit by the numerous, well integrated and stealthy American designs.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Not really. The aerodynamics and structure reached the prototype stage

Impressive!! then what happened?

The design could be made as stealthy as a Eurocanard (without changing the structural layout).

how?

core avionics could be bought later.

So its a third generation with 4th generation engines, with the important 5th generation parts that integrate it and add to its awareness to be added at a later date?

The stealthy, lower-performance, highly integrated fighting style of the F-35 assumes are large deployment with a wide array of support assets - not a few solitary flights of interceptors or strike aircraft (over a large area of space).

Do your homework

And once the Arrow dodges BVR missiles it closes in for the dogfight yes? With its cannons and bubble canopy I bet pilots can't wait to mix it up.

easier to just fund the United States to do it.

Its funny because thats how I feel about you trying to make your own aircraft.


So you will be paying some of our bills too though? along with the expense it takes to develop your own aircraft and industry for an advanced version of an aircraft you could never afford in the first place??

Hope ya got a money tree somewhere... on second thought fields of money trees.

 

[Avimimus]

Not really. The aerodynamics and structure reached the prototype stage

Impressive!! then what happened?

I'm sure you know the story. Ballistic missiles, long-range SAMs were the rage. Project canceled, materials destroyed (largely for political reasons), we eventually bought imported fighters.

The design could be made as stealthy as a Eurocanard (without changing the structural layout).

how?

We're talking about a simple delta with a single vertical stabiliser in the middle. This is basically similar to the Eurofighter Typhoon, SAAB Gripen and J-10. While not necessarily optimised to the degree of the Rafale, the use of internal bays and the lack of canards (or horizontal stabs) should help reduce the RCS. The basic layout isn't less stealthy than a Eurocanard.

Redesigning the engine inlets to incorporate a radar blocker, attention to details, and generous application of RAM should yield an RCS equal or lower than existing Eurocanards (or the Super-Hornet or the Su-35)... heck, a limited amount of faceting could even be done...

core avionics could be bought later.

So its a third generation with 4th generation engines, with the important 5th generation parts that integrate it and add to its awareness to be added at a later date?

Yes. A composite solution for a compromised but highly functional (and reasonably survivable) interceptor and strike platform (based on the aphorism 'all that is good is simple').

The stealthy, lower-performance, highly integrated fighting style of the F-35 assumes are large deployment with a wide array of support assets - not a few solitary flights of interceptors or strike aircraft (over a large area of space).

Do your homework

And once the Arrow dodges BVR missiles it closes in for the dogfight yes? With its cannons and bubble canopy I bet pilots can't wait to mix it up.

No, it releases its missiles outside of the no-escape zone of the enemy aircraft and then flees. If it can't get a radar lock (due to low-observable characteristics) it flees. We rely on SAMs for close defense of installations and use the high speed of the platform (along with the generous maneuvering room yielded by Canadian territory) to probe for holes in the enemies defenses (where we can unleash stand-off air-to-surface weapons). Imperfect - I know.

easier to just fund the United States to do it.

Its funny because thats how I feel about you trying to make your own aircraft.

So you will be paying some of our bills too though? along with the expense it takes to develop your own aircraft and industry for an advanced version of an aircraft you could never afford in the first place??

Hope ya got a money tree somewhere... on second thought fields of money trees.

It'll be cheaper than buying what you're offering... Plenty of latitude for mismanagement too... ;D
If need be we'd only order fifty - but they'd be pretty...

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

but they'd be pretty...

After all the redesigns even that is a matter of debate.