Derek 2.0

Believe it or not, some people have a life that doesn't involve MLW.......by all means ask your questions again, but I have no intention of sifting through the histories of Indian wars and the other pages of derail. No idea he retired.........or was he forced out Joking aside, I do remember said remarks and the context they were spoken in. Where are these strict numbers? All aspect means "stealth" is more than RCS.......it includes heat (important to those Russian uber aircraft) signature, radio/communications emissions......etc And no, I don't dismiss the F-22 "reboot" at all........of course its predicated on being able to utilize the avionics and computing systems developed for the F-35 and have them incorporated into the F-22 airframe.......all comes down to money. * As to your other posts, I'll attempt to get to them (and the ones I missed?) in the next day or so, if not weekend, fore I have to go do things.... in exchange for money... from these groups of people

The "foreign forces" are actually partners and receive the same data that the Americans have.......said data is not secret to said "forces". The rate of (radar) return of each aircraft isn't "commonly used to make comparisons", because said information isn't in the public sphere.........one thing is certain though, said aircraft (SR-71, F-117, F-22 and F-35) are all generational and all designed by Lockheed......even including the B-2 (Northrop Grumman) program, which leveraged technology on said program onto the F-35 (Northrop is a F-35 partner) ergo, from public statements, if the head of the USAF states the F-35 is more "stealthy" than the F-22 I will tend to believe him until proven otherwise.........and of course "radar cross section" is but one facet of "stealth", which again (from public information) will include the use of fuel as a heat sink to reduce the F-35's heat signature or the aircraft's new data link which will allow it to stealthy share information with other forces etc etc..... You are entitled to your conspiracy theory, as that is a story that you have heard.......I'll take a clear statement from the head of the USAF's fighter force, that clearly cites the differing attributes of each aircraft........good, bad and ugly.......combined with the realization that Lockheed would be capable of generational improvements between both aircraft it designed and built decades apart. You are privy to the IR signatures of both aircraft, so much so, that you are qualified to make such a statement (and information) public? Yes, and is likely why the B-21 will share a similar basic wing/surface shape as the B-2.

No, per the head of the USAF's fighter force, the F-35's all aspect "stealth" is better than the F-22........the aircraft rumored to best all others is the B-2......which being apart of the nuclear triad, they won't publicly confirm. Low frequency band radars (VHF/UHF) can't direct (guide) missiles, anymore than 1950s rabbit ears on a tv can, due to the fact that they are low frequency and are subject to "ghosting"......as accurate as playing darts blindfolded..........in addition, unlike high frequency radars (fire control/search radars), low frequency bands can't be strobed (turned on and off rapidly), making them more susceptible to anti-radiation attacks........any emitting (active) radar can be "seen" long before by attackers then the inverse. As to Russian radar "advancements" I'd look no further then the German Luftwaffe: When the the West and East reunited their air force operated the third generation American F-4 Phantom and the 4th generation Russian Mig-29 well the Eurofighter was in development. The Germans "retired" the Migs obtained in the 1980s over a decade earlier then their F-4 Phantoms (1960-70s vintage and the opposite of stealth) as their main air defense fighter, only finally retiring it several years ago............that's not a testament to Russian technology, as at the time (early 1980s) the Mig-29 (and Su-27) was then reported to have both an advanced radar and infra-red search and tracking (IRST) system.....better than anything in the West.......in actual fact, no it doesn't......... The F-35's radar/DAS can track something as small as a mortar round or as fast as a ballistic missile........The West might start taking notice of the Russians (or Chinese) once they join the rest of the world in this century........

Uh.....no, per the head of Air Combat Command: And your source that the Russians have or are even near "solving stealth"?

A downsizing based on Cold War circumstance......during the Cold War half of our operational Hornet fleet was based in (West) Germany, with the other half based in Canada mainly committed to NORAD, in addition to several squadrons of CF-5 Freedom Fighters (Obsolete junk) based in Canada and intended to go to Norway in the advent of a war with the Soviets. The 65 number in the exact minimum and won't change operational numbers: Our current Hornets are grouped in squadrons and account for ~48 aircraft, with the rest dedicated to conversion training (two seat Hornets), deep maintenance and a small attrition reserve.....65 replacements would still be grouped into squadrons accounting ~48, with the remainder namely in deep maintenance and attrition, largely forgoing conversion training, instead such training with be conducted more so in simulators......... as noted in past threads, its probable that we still would require additional attrition aircraft dependent on any losses down the road.....this of course would be a problem with an aircraft that is no longer produced, hence requiring a larger initial purchase (see the difference in the proposed Danish deal between F-35 vs Super Hornet)

Versus spending how many billions purchasing an "interim" aircraft, combined with the added costs of operating a mixed fleet......and even then, any legacy Hornets that we will operate post 2020 will still have to be upgraded to meet the requirements of NEXTGEN air traffic management for use in North America and Europe........so we'll still have to pay for upgrading our current Hornets, or at least a portion, and purchase an "interim" aircraft. First off, and it can't be stressed enough, when our Prime Minister's father's government selected our current Hornets, they were a "unproven product"...... To answer your question, per the head of the RCAF (and the RCAF itself), we would require a contract signed no later than 2021 to ensure a 4-5 year transition into a new aircraft.....post 2025, increases the risk with our current fleet and would likely require another upgrade, with the understanding that a portion of the fleet would have to be retired due to structural issues. As cited earlier, if required, the Americans are willing to let us jump ahead of them. As cited in the other thread over a year ago, the RCAF's conservative plan is five years to transition out of the Hornet and into the F-35 completely...... For more information on the Hornet upgrade and timelines revisit the previous cite......noting the context that the Harper Government decided to go with the life extension and the RCAF is currently in the planning stages.......as cited, the RCAF term the Hornet extension as low-risk through 2025, with post 2025 use as higher risk. I'm not sure where you getting $2.5 billion figure? The USN/USMC developed and implemented their life extension for less than $10 million an aircraft. I won't ask for costs nor timeline for the Trudeau Government's sole source of the Super Hornets, none the less, from the RAAF's deal from over a decade ago, we do know the Australians paid over $4 billion (USD) for 24 Super Hornets and 10 years support............

I know who it is (M. Gilmore), we went over the very quote (earlier this year?) You spoke to said causes several pages back, namely, dwindling budgets..........as noted though, none of said nations forced into budget cuts have opted to replace the reduced numbers of planned F-35s with another type. I don't know that the Danish reduction is a reflection of the F-35 itself......several years ago they took an axe to their defense budget, and now only operate ~30 F-16s.....likewise, as to 2021, here too, is a reflection that the Danes bought their F-16s in several lots, including the later 80s and even into the 90s...........so its reasonable to assume that 27 F-35s will be able to do the work of 30 F-16s. You answered your own question.......the entire purpose of the program was risk mitigation, not only among US services, but the partner nations.......you can poo-pooh the F-22 program (Boeing was Lockheed's partner by the way), and there is certainly just cause, but that is simply proving my point.....as the F-22 was a high risk program with leaps and bounds of new technology.......likewise, look no further than the Eurofighter and Rafale, two programs that demonstrated quite clearly the complexities involved in developing fighter aircraft....unlike the F-35 that is years delayed, the two European aircraft were decades delayed in delivering a finished product...... So despite the delays in the F-35, nations are staying with and joining the program because of (shared) risk mitigation among a whole host of nations.

I'm sure some do.......valid opinion, just as much as the one longing for Sopwith Camels is........realistic? Nah Clearly, not using them was far more fearful a prospect.

As you said......."on paper"......just as Boeing's projections on Super Hornet service life hours are "on paper" or any proposed "Advanced Super Hornet" is "on paper".......so it returns to one of the key points of the whole program......risk mitigation.

Exactly, and will still benefit from decades more support due to its planned out of service date with the USAF.

Not so much a promotion, but a thought exercise........For Canada, absent the F-22, the latest block of F-15 is the most suited of currently serving fighters to perform NORAD in terms of capability, range, speed etc etc.....its engineered (and is surpassing its expected life) to last far longer then the Super Hornet.....it can perform any role our current Hornets or a Super Hornet can far better.....the proposed "Silent Eagle" would feature "Stealthish" capabilities.........for those that operate multi-type fleets and plan to operate the F-35, there are several partners that will be operating a combination of F-35s and F-15s (United States, Japan, South Korea, Israel and Singapore) so there could synergies in a combined logistics network between allies........etc

Didn't the discrepancy translate into a mater of months? I forget.

A very good point, the current F-15C fleet is operating far past its intended service life, upwards of 3-4 times that of the Super Hornet.......even if the operational costs are double that of the Super Hornet etc, in terms of both capability and durability its not even close.

The proposed advanced Super Hornet still isn't in the same league as the latest F-15, let alone the proposed Silent Eagle.....apples to oranges.

Exactly, even forgoing the proposed Silent Eagle, for an interim purchase, the latest blocks as purchased by South Korea, Singapore or Israel wouldn't be that much more..........

Marketing. Again, full rate production is still slated for 2019.......WRT the Danes, I'd assume block 3F and better.

In the later 70s.......today, based on their proposed deal with the South Koreans, they're not much more then Super Hornets or the F-35......granted their operational costs will be more..........but if Singapore can afford to operate them, Canada could.

Best match bar none.....the Strike Eagle was intended to move mud, and is able to do it better then other currently serving combat aircraft.......and if/when needed to do counter air, despite the added weight of another crew member, is still one of the more lethal aircraft currently in service around the world.....only bested by a handful of other aircraft intended as air superiority types.

From the Government's side so it would seem..........but, coming from Boeing's vantage point, it makes little sense........why would they offer Canada a less capable aircraft?

The F-15E Strike Eagle performed more CAS missions and dropped more munitions during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq then all other aircraft, absent the A-10 and B-52........but thanks for coming out.

Oh I agree, I think (as does the RCAF) a single fleet is the way forward, but from Boeing's perspective, the Super Hornet isn't even in the same league as the Eagle...on paper, the Eagle should be far more marketable to Canada.

Again, I'll revert back to the intention and practice done by most nations.......like Canada, the partners seek to purchase during full rate production, hence it should be no surprise that very little is being bought in the low rate production phase of the program. Second, many of the buyers don't cast for the big fish, but smaller fishes of equal weight......i.e, they purchase their requirements with gradual purchases instead of one large block buy in order. With regards to Appropriations, in an election year, not a clue......I'd still expect the planned 65 (IIRC?) F-35s and maybe the additional handful of currently unfunded F-35s for the USN and USMC......I wouldn't expect any further outlay to purchase much more than that.

Well that's just it.......if one wanted to pondering something, consider this: Why is Boeing hawking the Super Hornet to Canada and not the latest incarnation of the F-15? I mean, despite its age, the F-15E will still be serving post 2040 with the USAF (possibly even some F-15Cs with Guard units), to say nothing of the latest versions still in production being bought by Allies that will operate it alongside their planned F-35 purchases for decades ahead.......on paper, something like their proposed Silent Eagle would seem far more fitting for Canada (absent the F-35 or apart a mixed Silent Eagle/F-35 fleet) to meet its NORAD requirements..........already, the majority of the F-15 fleets in the USAF/Japan/Israel are approaching 20000 hours of service life, minus a major SLEP........If the Strike Eagles serve out to the 2040s, they will at or around 25-30k hours........ Canada could operate an "interim fleet" of Eagles for 40+ years standing on our heads So why is Boeing pushing the Super Hornet, and not the latest Eagle?

Was it? Though I agree it is getting into the weeds (pun intended) to suggest Canada forgo its present and future requirements for which our Hornets and their replacements will be required to meet, instead, opting for a force befitting of a 1960s Latin Banana Republic.........I suppose its as valid an argument/opinion as those that might suggest Canada has no need of a fighter force.....

Odd, even in times of little tension, the majority of our operational Hornets are assigned to NORAD........and for good reason, as those pesky Russians have returned to the Arctic, with a bomber that can't easily be intercepted (after just dispelling the myth that they can no longer operate on a strategic scale) and are developing its eventual (stealth) replacement. Oh, you were serious? No, Canada in the advent of needing to support our troops in a bush war will continue to make use of the now proven method of modern aircraft combined with smart munitions. Of course you are poo-poohed.......you're suggesting a one dimensional, niche force that would have offered little to the missions Canada has undertaken for the last 30 years, or what we will undertake for the next 30. Simply put, modern fighters paired with modern munitions can perform everything we need (or would need) of them, including CAS/COIN.........your COIN force would offer nothing towards NORAD or NATO assurance in Eastern Europe.....both missions that the majority of our force is actually involved in.