F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[Guest Derek L]

2nd linkee fixed in recent posts.. juggling too many things right now!

No harm, no foul..........

But the crux, between Combat radius is telling…….Said figures attributed with 4/4.5 generation aircraft (ie Hornet. Super Hornet Eurofighter etc) will have the inclusion of external drop tanks, coupled with weapons themselves…..Obviously large objects festooned under the wings will foster a myriad of negative attributes (drag, wing loading etc) to said aircraft’s performance……..Of course, the F-35’s internal fuel and weapons load will not effect the aircraft in a similar manner, coupled with the ability to carry external stores if required, thusly increasing the range even further and putting it into the same category as past long range interdictors (ie A-6, F-111 etc) as opposed to pedestrian multi-role fighters.

[waldo]

carry external stores!!! You mean... give up on the much vaunted (yet totally unproven) 'claimed' stealthy prowess of the F-35!

[Guest Derek L]

speaking of... oh my, oh my! Italy... it's a F-35 tier 2 partner right? Italy's ruling party divided over order for F-35 combat jets

.

And much like the Dutch prior?

The Italians are tied to the F-35B if they desire to optimise the Cavour..........

At the end of the day though, Finmeccanica will carry more wait in the country then the "daycare lobby"........

[Guest Derek L]

carry external stores!!! You mean... give up on the much vaunted (yet totally unproven) 'claimed' stealthy prowess of the F-35!

Drop tanks can be…..well dropped after use………

Then again the inherent Stealth wouldn’t be as necessary once the “First Day of War” air strikes knocked out any air defence network……….But it’s options at then end of the day, options that can’t be matched by a 4/4.5 Gen aircraft.

[GostHacked]

Derek L

From the video you posted, I am curious as to why there are hard points on the exterior of this jet. Ordinance is held internally for stealth abilities. That missile on the wing hard point would get a bigger radar signature than the aircraft. Or am I wrong here.

[GostHacked]

Drop tanks can be…..well dropped after use………

Then again the inherent Stealth wouldn’t be as necessary once the “First Day of War” air strikes knocked out any air defence network……….But it’s options at then end of the day, options that can’t be matched by a 4/4.5 Gen aircraft.

If these fighters never see the light of day or action in general, then a Sopwith Camel would even be better.

[Guest Derek L]

Derek L

From the video you posted, I am curious as to why there are hard points on the exterior of this jet. Ordinance is held internally for stealth abilities. That missile on the wing hard point would get a bigger radar signature than the aircraft. Or am I wrong here.

Nope, not at all, the F-35 will be able to carry ordinance/fuel under the wings akin to a conventional 4th gen aircraft, where it differs, is that it's not reliant to do so, depending on the mission requirements..........Another feather in the F-35’s cap is that it also won’t require the external carriage of weapons targeting pods, electronic countermeasures pods and reconnaissance pods as these will are incorporated into the F-35’s airframe

Here’s a pic of a USN Growler electronic warfare aircraft:

With the F-35, all the functions carried out by the (three ECM & two fuel) pods you see on pylons under the wing will be incorporated into namely the F-35’s nose and tail.

[Guest Derek L]

And some more Lockheed & Canadian harmony:

[AlienB]

And some more Lockheed & Canadian harmony:

however its stealth will be cancled if it carries anything externally and it will then perform worse than the f-18 above.

[Guest Derek L]

however its stealth will be cancled if it carries anything externally and it will then perform worse than the f-18 above.

Actually, it’s stealth will be reduced, and it’s performance and flight characteristics, as discussed earlier in this thread, are still superior to that of the Hornet and Falcon……..It’s all about wing loading and thrust to weight ratio.

[waldo]

easy to say - just another of your unsubstantiated claims! Just show it! Be all you can be!

ok, ok, Derek L... since you absolutely refuse to substantiate your repeated claim that F-35 program costs have come down through the iterative program cycle... even after you have been repeatedly challenged to support your claim, the waldo will drop the junkyard dog act and put you out of your misery: as you can see, the B&C variant procurement cost has never been higher... and the A variant cost is now higher than all but one of the last 4 years.

you are welcome - carry on!

[waldo]

Italy's ruling party divided over order for F-35 combat jets

And much like the Dutch prior?

The Italians are tied to the F-35B if they desire to optimise the Cavour..........

huh! The numbers I read for Italy split the significantly now reduced purchase intent (now down to 90 from the original 130) into 60 A variant and 30 B variant.

as for the Dutch... are you counting your chickens before they hatch? Yes, we have had discussion on this before - the final decision is as tenuous as the nature of coalition government. As you know, as we discussed, if not for a most unexpected win by the Dutch VVD Party in the recent election (and the resulting coalition makeup), the Netherlands Parliament had voted to kill the F-35 program. As of today, no final decision has been made... in spite of all the (relatively) recent articles stating one has. You need to read no further than the official Dutch House of Representatives website:

Decision

It is laid down in the coalition agreement that the Cabinet will take a final decision on the replacement of the F-16 by the end of 2013. Defence Minister Hennis-Plasschaert is drafting a vision of the future of the armed forces. In this vision the minister sets out the choices the Cabinet will make with regard to national and international duties of the armed forces and the capacity needed to carry out these duties. The replacement of the F-16 is part of this vision.

of course, the fact the Dutch opted not to accept the 2 F-35s they have already purchased... and that are now being stored in the U.S. - that should have been your first clue that a final decision has not yet been made!

if you do not like the above Netherlands Parliament link & quote, here is a days old update - even with a lame google translation, the essence comes through - no final decision has been made to this point.

in any case, there is uncertainty remaining still - to this day... for both F-35 Tier 2 partners, for both the Netherlands and Italy!

[waldo]

Actually, it’s stealth will be reduced, and it’s performance and flight characteristics, as discussed earlier in this thread, are still superior to that of the Hornet and Falcon……..It’s all about wing loading and thrust to weight ratio.

not tested, not proven... again, you revert to target performance metrics and stated “flight characteristics” (from LockMart)... of course you do!

[DogOnPorch]

That this machine can be flown loaded and clean at the same time is a HUGE advantage.

[bush_cheney2004]

ok, ok, Derek L... since you absolutely refuse to substantiate your repeated claim that F-35 program costs have come down through the iterative program cycle... even after you have been repeatedly challenged to support your claim, the waldo will drop the junkyard dog act and put you out of your misery: as you can see, the B&C variant procurement cost has never been higher... and the A variant cost is now higher than all but one of the last 4 years.

you are welcome - carry on!

Air Force? Navy? What ever happened to "Canadian Forces" ? Oh wait...this is American data....never mind.

[DogOnPorch]

Air Force? Navy? What ever happened to "Canadian Forces" ? Oh wait...this is American data....never mind.

An still no alternatives other than pie in the sky stuff like buying from Russia.

[waldo]

That this machine can be flown loaded and clean at the same time is a HUGE advantage.

is it? We've gone down this 'stealthy road' before! As previously relayed, before he was muzzled, the U.S. Navy’s top commander, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, has publicly questioned the long-term benefits of fighter jet stealth, suggesting instead that drones and other alternatives are the 'real future'. And, of course, we discussed the so-called stealth-busters... like passive radar. Speaking of, since another guy here has been flogging stuff from the recent Paris Air Show, here's a lil' 'passive coherent location' ditty from the company EADS-Cassidian:

EADS Cassidian has gone public with a system it calls Passive Radar, which it began developing in 2006.

“The principle of passive radar has been known for a long time,” said Elmar Compans, head of sensors and electronic warfare at Cassidian. “However, we have now integrated the latest capabilities of digital receiver and signal-processing technology to significantly enhance range and detection accuracy by monitoring various emitters at the same time.”

PCL is the capture and analysis of the radiation that is reflected from an aircraft as it flies through the fields of various transmitters, such as analog or digital radio broadcasters, television stations and mobile phone stations. By networking multiple PCL receivers, coverage of a wide area can be achieved. Further, PCL offers detection capacity in areas of radar shadow, such as mountainous terrain. It is capable of locating extremely low- and slow-flying objects. And, ironically, a PCL system is itself stealthy, because it generates no electronic emissions.

Bernhardt is bullish about the system’s ability to detect low-observable aircraft. “Our multistatic architecture is a big counter-stealth advantage. And stealth aircraft are coated against high frequencies, whereas we operate from 100 MHz upward,” he said.

The Cassidian Passive Radar has a high detection-update rate (every 0.5 seconds); covers 360 degrees; has 3-D (meaning that it includes altitude) capability to about 40,000 feet; and demonstrates robust track continuity, especially during high-speed maneuvering, claims the company. “We can detect low-altitude targets better than an active radar, because of the low frequencies that we use,” added Bernhardt.

and, uhhh... again, as before, just why does Canada need a 'stealth jet fighter'... even if its stealth couldn't be busted?

.

[bush_cheney2004]

and, uhhh... again, as before, just why does Canada need a 'stealth jet fighter'... even if its stealth couldn't be busted?

.

Because PCL will not work for accurate air-to-air or ground-to-air fire control guidance against stealthy targets, If it was that easy, it would have been done years ago. EW and ECM suites will detect passive radar and coherent location efforts, if they haven't already been destroyed by defense suppression. It's still a counter measure game out there, and that includes stealth.

Why are such things called "jet fighters" or worse yet...."fighter jets" by Canadians ?

[waldo]

Because PCL will not work for accurate air-to-air or ground-to-air fire control guidance against stealthy targets

well... if you say it won't work - case closed!!!

[bush_cheney2004]

well... if you say it won't work - case closed!!!

It will be great for EADS sales of new arrays and DSP consoles for very old technology. Happy hunting !

Edited June 18, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

If it was that easy, it would have been done years ago.

so... given the abysmal decade-long+ string of F-35 failure (over budget, over schedule, over hype)... it's not easy? Is that what you're saying?

[bush_cheney2004]

so... given the abysmal decade-long+ string of F-35 failure (over budget, over schedule, over hype)... it's not easy? Is that what you're saying?

No...JFK said it better than I:

....we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win

The F-35 JSF ain't no Avro Arrow...if you know what I mean. Soon to be flying at an airfield near you.

[DogOnPorch]

is it? We've gone down this 'stealthy road' before! As previously relayed, before he was muzzled, the U.S. Navy’s top commander, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, has publicly questioned the long-term benefits of fighter jet stealth, suggesting instead that drones and other alternatives are the 'real future'. And, of course, we discussed the so-called stealth-busters... like passive radar. Speaking of, since another guy here has been flogging stuff from the recent Paris Air Show, here's a lil' 'passive coherent location' ditty from the company EADS-Cassidian:

and, uhhh... again, as before, just why does Canada need a 'stealth jet fighter'... even if its stealth couldn't be busted?

.

You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of 'clean' and 'loaded'. Clean = no junk hanging from the aircraft....errrr...jet fighter. Loaded = junk that increases wing-loading. While 'loaded', most aircraft are incapable of performing most advanced maneuvers and are limited...depending on the item...to certain G loads least the item (pod/missile/bomb/drop tank) tear away violently. If the F-35 can still be clean with a full load of goodies, that's an advantage...period.

[bush_cheney2004]

You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of 'clean' and 'loaded'. Clean = no junk hanging from the aircraft....errrr...jet fighter. Loaded = junk that increases wing-loading. While 'loaded', most aircraft are incapable of performing most advanced maneuvers and are limited...depending on the item...to certain G loads least the item (pod/missile/bomb/drop tank) tear away violently. If the F-35 can still be clean with a full load of goodies, that's an advantage...period.

Please forgive them, for they know not what they say...not even with Google.

[DogOnPorch]

Please forgive them, for they know not what they say...not even with Google.

I think it was the F-105 that first tried to tackle that issue with notable success. But, in Viet-Nam they overloaded those suckers to the max at times...wings and extra belly rack included. Still did Mach 1 at sea level...heh.