Becarefull what you wish for.

[Smallc]

Or they'll get edgy. It is unlikely Red China will get back in the bottle.

I don't think so. They're becoming far too dependant on the rest of the world for their standard of living. It's not the same place it was in the past.

[Guest Derek L]

and the long-standing opponents of the F-35... Air Power Australia? They're certainly no advocates for what they call the "Eurocanard (Typoon/Rafale)", but why are they so down on the F-35? Your thoughts on their recent presentation to the Australian Parliament showcasing the 'Rand involved war games' that, apparently, has the F-35 heavily trounced?

APA is a Armchair General advocacy group that favours the F-22 Raptor……..Theirs is a flight of fancy, which has yet to acknowledge the reality that the F-22 was never going to be exported by the Americans……to say nothing of their lack of comprehension of the, lack their of capability, of the F-22 to move mud.

As for the Eurofighter and Rafal themselves, though not widely publicized by their respective manufactures, they are both the end product of a once started program that saw the French initially included in the Eurofighter partner nations. The French exit was predicated on Dassault not having the majority of the work share and the other partners having no desire to develop a naval version to meet French requirements.

In hindsight, when compared head-to-head, and based on the record of the recent Libyan campaign, the Rafale has the more mature capabilities when contrasted with the Eurofighter.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't think so. They're becoming far too dependant on the rest of the world for their standard of living. It's not the same place it was in the past.

Nor is it the same place it was pre-1949. Not our pals, really. But, they smile a lot as they buy up Canada lot by lot.

[Smallc]

Also, the F-35 didn't get trounced, their tankers were destroyed, and they couldn't refuel (this is all of course, simulation).

[Guest Derek L]

the question was about 'first-strike' requirements? Again, why does Canada need that capability? In the last 30+ years, what circumstances required... or would have required... Canada to have this capability? If you can't answer this particular question, don't bother replying.

The definition of “first strike in muddled”……..Yes, clearly today one could consider a stealth aircraft as to having “first strike capabilities” when contrasted with other ~4th generation aircraft sans stealth. This is a reflection on the “stealth” aircraft having the higher likelihood of surviving enemy air defences and delivering initial, surprise strikes, thus allowing conventional 4th gen aircraft to follow on with a relatively better chance of surviving

Now where the labelling of the F-35 as a “first strike capability” is misleading, is that with the ever increasing lethality of air defence networks and growing effectiveness of radars, will eventually render current 4th gen aircraft the mantel of “no strike capability” with acceptable loss in terms of personal and aircraft.

[DogOnPorch]

Typical system in use today...the S-300. These fellows are having a great time training with them.

[fellowtraveller]

A big incentive is Dassault will be opening a plant in India and actual manufacturing for the majority of the planes will occur in India. Effectively, Dassault and the India government have struck a 'strategic partnership' (on several levels). Again, tendering has its advantages/benefits/gains...

French war technology combined with Indian manufacturing.

What could possibly go wrong there?

You end up with the worst product for the lowest price and the most work for govt employees, just what you want in a warplane.

Reminds me of an alleged astronaut Gus Grissom anecdote. He was asked what he thought of as he lay strapped down in the nosecone of a Saturn rocket seconds before being blasted into space, with all that immense deadly power rumbling and trembling beneath him. He said somehting like " all I can think of is that there are about 50,000 parts in this machine and every one of them has to work right or I die, and every one of the 50,000 went out to the lowst bidder".

[Jack Weber]

Mr Harper...like yourself, can KMA.

When the gate dropped, bozos out there went *DING*, gosh...let's trade with the Red Chinese! There's money to be made. No matter we're selling out future generations.

If there's money to be made the Chinese can't exactly be called "Red" anymore can they???

Better call them "Black" and watch out for the stick laden axe...

[bush_cheney2004]

....Now where the labelling of the F-35 as a “first strike capability” is misleading, is that with the ever increasing lethality of air defence networks and growing effectiveness of radars, will eventually render current 4th gen aircraft the mantel of “no strike capability” with acceptable loss in terms of personal and aircraft.

Recent conflicts have demonstrated that defense suppression prior to manned strike sorties continues to be the preferred order of battle. Many more aircraft can now deliver precision munitions from altitude to render fixed AAW sites ineffective at best. Once blinded and crippled, "sophisticated" air defenses remain only as paper invoices payable to Russia.

[Guest Derek L]

Recent conflicts have demonstrated that defense suppression prior to manned strike sorties continues to be the preferred order of battle. Many more aircraft can now deliver precision munitions from altitude to render fixed AAW sites ineffective at best. Once blinded and crippled, "sophisticated" air defenses remain only as paper invoices payable to Russia.

Exactly, but what platforms were used during the initial air strikes during conflicts for the last twenty years? Tomahawks, F-117s and B-2s……..And with that said, defensive countermeasures today on a 4th generation fighter are vastly superior to those on 3rd generation aircraft etc……….Stealth (amongst other things) is the natural progression of countermeasures…….

I don’t disagree that in a permissive environment, with total air superiority, less defensive countermeasures are required, with this being demonstrated by the two most effective CAS aircraft during the Afghanistan war being the A-10 and B-52. But the compromises of using these aircraft in a more dangerous environment are clear.

As I’ve said in a earlier thread, ideally we would have multiple aircraft types, designed to excel in varying environments, with varying threat levels and tasks assigned, but that is clearly a financial non-starter for Canada (and most others), hence the compromise of modern multi role aircraft, JSF included.

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly, but what platforms were used during the initial air strikes during conflicts for the last twenty years? Tomahawks, F-117s and B-2s……..And with that said, defensive countermeasures today on a 4th generation fighter are vastly superior to those on 3rd generation aircraft etc……….Stealth (amongst other things) is the natural progression of countermeasures…….

Air defense systems are limited by range and betrayed by their own active search and fire control radar emissions. Precision guided munitions have reduced the exercise to how much money do you want to spend for inevitable air superiority.

I don’t disagree that in a permissive environment, with total air superiority, less defensive countermeasures are required, with this being demonstrated by the two most effective CAS aircraft during the Afghanistan war being the A-10 and B-52. But the compromises of using these aircraft in a more dangerous environment are clear.

The most serious AAW challenge was seen in 1999 against a decent Serbian adversary. But it just made the game more interesting than the incompetent efforts seen in Iraq. Few doubted the outcome, even as several aircraft including a F-117 were lost. The combination of stealth, stand-off range, and precision guidance is just too much to overcome.

As I’ve said in a earlier thread, ideally we would have multiple aircraft types, designed to excel in varying environments, with varying threat levels and tasks assigned, but that is clearly a financial non-starter for Canada (and most others), hence the compromise of modern multi role aircraft, JSF included.

Right....that is exactly why the F-35 exists. It's the equivalent of a smart phone, combining several devices and capabilities into one (software upgradeable) platform.

Edited April 14, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

Air defense systems are limited by range and betrayed by their own active search and fire control radar emissions. Precision guided munitions have reduced the exercise to how much money do you want to spend for inevitable air superiority.

Clearly this is the case (for now), but with recent NATO exercises with former Commie Bloc countries that have semi modern Russian air defence systems, it has been demonstrated that the Soviets Russians are closing the gap with early block Patriot and Standard centric air defence systems…….Complacency shouldn’t be afforded.

The most serious AAW challenge was seen in 1999 against a decent Serbian adversary. But it just made the game more interesting than the incompetent efforts seen in Iraq. But few doubted the outcome, even as several aircraft including a F-117 were lost. The combination of stand-off range and precision guidance is just too much to overcome.

In fairness, the F-117 loss was to do more with the continued usage of the same air lane in and out as opposed to the utility behind the Serb’s air defence network…….A case of complacency and a broken clock giving the correct time twice a day.

Right....that is exactly why the F-35 exists. It's the equivalent of a smart phone, combining several devices and capabilities into one (software upgradeable) platform.

There's an app for that.......

Edited April 14, 2012 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

Clearly this is the case (for now), but with recent NATO exercises with former Commie Bloc countries that have semi modern Russian air defence systems, it has been demonstrated that the Soviets Russians are closing the gap with early block Patriot and Standard centric air defence systems…….Complacency shouldn’t be afforded.

I have every respect for Russian kit, but only when operated by actual Russians! The "West" gets to practice actual offensive operations when it counts. It just ain't fair.

In fairness, the F-117 loss was to do more with the continued usage of the same air lane in and out as opposed to the utility behind the Serb’s air defence network…….A case of complacency and a broken clock giving the correct time twice a day.

..and unexplained anomalies in cell phone mast RF patterns.

There's an app for that.......

What is criticized today as missing tactical and comms software may prove to be its greatest versatility. Avionics updates in real time.

Edited April 14, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

If there's money to be made the Chinese can't exactly be called "Red" anymore can they???

Better call them "Black" and watch out for the stick laden axe...

Howz about pink?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vA4T1wfJLE

[DogOnPorch]

I have every respect for Russian kit, but only when operated by actual Russians! The "West" gets to practice actual offensive operations when it counts. It just ain't fair.

Yes...the actual Russian squadrons did much better than their Chinese and N Korean squadron counterparts during Korea. Rumors are that several North Vietnamese aces were also Russian. SAM operators usually were.

What is criticized today as missing tactical and comms software may prove to be its greatest versatility. Avionics updates in real time.

Adaptive defences...how Borg of you.

Edited April 14, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

I have every respect for Russian kit, but only when operated by actual Russians! The "West" gets to practice actual offensive operations when it counts. It just ain't fair.

As do I in some respects, but I attribute some hearing loss to their submarines……..

..and unexplained anomalies in cell phone mast RF patterns.

I never heard that one, interesting, and I suppose that could make sense.

What is criticized today as missing tactical and comms software may prove to be its greatest versatility. Avionics updates in real time.

I agree, coupled with the (forced) standardization of aircraft across international fleets……..The ability to have a Canadian pilot, trained in the United States, flying a Norwegian aircraft, with Dutch engines and British weapons, maintained by an Australian, will clearly become a boon in any future multinational operations…..It will be to the air force, what the STANAG magazine was to the army.