Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[PIK]

So no new money for planes or ships under trudeau. We I guess we need to the money to pay for his travelling in the next 4 yrs. Because nby the sound of it he will spend little time in the country. Gotta save the world you know.

[Big Guy]

You can purchase about 100 Predator drones for one f-35.

[Wilber]

You can purchase about 100 Predator drones for one f-35.

And one F-35 could shoot down all 100 Predators without getting touched.

On edit

Most of us have cars that can go faster than the Predators cruising speed.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Wilber

[Smallc]

So no new money for planes or ships under trudeau. We I guess we need to the money to pay for his travelling in the next 4 yrs. Because nby the sound of it he will spend little time in the country. Gotta save the world you know.

Trudeau did the same thing that Harper did in 2012 and 2014 - moved money the military can't spend. Even with the money being moved twice, they still had to return over $10B to Ottawa since 2007 - because they couldn't spend it.

[dre]

And one F-35 could shoot down all 100 Predators without getting touched.

On edit

Most of us have cars that can go faster than the Predators cruising speed.

Actually testing using a multi-node approach has been pretty successful. And an AMRAAM can go Mock 4 and once it locks on to something will hit it about 60% of the time. Pretty sure your car doesnt go mock 4.

Also I think you've watched Top Gun one too many times. Can you name a plausible scenario in which Canadian planes will be in close quarters dog-fight with a 5th generation plane?

[Wilber]

Actually testing using a multi-node approach has been pretty successful. And an AMRAAM can go Mock 4 and once it locks on to something will hit it about 60% of the time. Pretty sure your car doesnt go mock 4.

Also I think you've watched Top Gun one too many times. Can you name a plausible scenario in which Canadian planes will be in close quarters dog-fight with a 5th generation plane?

The Predator is powered by a 115 HP four cylinder Rotax engine that is used in light aircraft and homebuilts. It has a top speed of about 135 MPH and a cruising speed of between 80 and 105 MPH. It couldn't even find a dogfight let alone get into a position to launch an air to air missile against a modern fighter without a lot of dumb luck. Even the Reaper has a top speed of only 300 mph and a cruising speed of less than 200 MPH

These aircraft are designed to go after soft ground targets with little or no antiaircraft capability, not air combat.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Wilber

[dre]

The Predator is powered by a 115 HP four cylinder Rotax engine that is used in light aircraft and homebuilts. It has a top speed of about 135 MPH and a cruising speed of between 80 and 105 MPH. It couldn't even find a dogfight let alone get into a position to launch an air to air missile. Even the Reaper has a top speed of only 300 mph and a cruising speed of less than 200 MPH

These aircraft are designed to go after soft ground targets, with little or no antiaircraft capability, not air combat.

The slow speed does not mean it cant take out air targets. As I said the missiles can be launched from 100 miles away and go mock 4. Even stationary AA batteries that cant move at all can shoot down planes.

Better call Maverick and the Goose, and let them know!

[Wilber]

The slow speed does not mean it cant take out air targets. As I said the missiles can be launched from 100 miles away and go mock 4. Even stationary AA batteries that cant move at all can shoot down planes.

Better call Maverick and the Goose, and let them know!

It's Mach by the way, not mock. You could mount an AMRAAM on a hot air balloon to. So what.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually testing using a multi-node approach has been pretty successful. And an AMRAAM can go Mock 4 and once it locks on to something will hit it about 60% of the time. Pretty sure your car doesnt go mock 4.

Neither the MQ-1 Predator or MQ-9 Reaper have the search and fire control radar to support BVR deployment and mid-course updates for the AIM-120 (AMRAAM) air-to-air missile. The AMRAAM's onboard guidance and terminal homing systems cannot effectively engage BVR targets without sensor support and updates from the launching platform or other sensors.

High performance tactical aircraft also impart critical altitude and speed advantages to the AMRAAM before launch...not possible with Predator or Reaper for reasons described above.

If it was possible/practical to do so, it would have been done already. Instead, the United States and other nations are developing UCAV/UCLASS unmanned aircraft for such missions to work in unison with manned strike and air superiority aircraft.

[dre]

You could mount an AMRAAM on a hot air balloon to. So what.

Try to follow along...

The slow speed does not mean it cant take out air targets.

[Wilber]

Try to follow along...

At 100 kts a Predator can't follow anything except a Cessna 150.

[dre]

At 100 kts a Predator can't follow anything except a Cessna 150.

That's simply not true. Also the immense cost of 5th generation aircraft's means they probably wont be put in really dangerous situations.

In any plausible situation where we are competing for air superiority... airports, runways, and AA batteries will be destroyed or degraded by cruise missiles or from stealth bombers. Any real combat scenarios are almost certainly going to be BVR (beyond visual range).

Here's a rundown from an 11 year F16 pilot.

I was in fighters for over a decade and never met anyone from any country who had been in an actual dogfight. If someone had participated in, or actually had a kill in a dogfight, it would be well known throughout the fighter community. Everyone in the squadron would know him or her as "the guy/girl who got a kill in Operation _____." It would be like scoring the winning touchdown in the Superbowl of fighter aviation.

Also, just to clarify, a dogfight implies a "WVR" (within visual range) fight. I see the hostile aircraft with my eyeballs and maneuver my aircraft in relation to him. Usually occurs inside of 5NM (nautical miles). However, many kills in the modern era occur BVR ("beyond visual range"), usually outside 5NM and often much farther away. BVR engagements imply that you determine an aircraft is hostile through various means, lock your radar onto it, shoot your AMRAAM, and have to rely on the fading of radar returns, visual sighting of fireball, or other means to determine if your attack was successful. Fighter pilots do not consider BVR engagements to be dogfighting.

Thus, actual WVR dogfights against hostiles (enemy aircraft) are both extremely rare and would likely be the highlight of a fighter pilot's career, assuming they survived!

I know Nowhere near as cool as watching Maverick and the Goose shoot down a dozen migs from close range!

[bush_cheney2004]

Here's a rundown from an 11 year F16 pilot.

This only confirms the current impossibility of deploying AIM-120 AMRAAM from a MQ-1 or MQ-9 "drone". It has neither the speed, altitude, or sensor/radar capabilities to effectively engage tactical aircraft at BVR distances.

[rotary]

This only confirms the current impossibility of deploying AIM-120 AMRAAM from a MQ-1 or MQ-9 "drone". It has neither the speed, altitude, or sensor/radar capabilities to effectively engage tactical aircraft at BVR distances.

Much like the F 35's shortcomings.

[bush_cheney2004]

Much like the F 35's shortcomings.

No, as the F-35 has been testing with AIM-120 AMRAAM for almost three years. F-35 has better sensor and radar integration than CF-18.

[rotary]

No, as the F-35 has been testing with AIM-120 AMRAAM for almost three years. F-35 has better sensor and radar integration than CF-18.

Except it can't turn, cant climb, can't run. Avionics do not an aircraft make.

[bush_cheney2004]

Except it can't turn, cant climb, can't run. Avionics do not an aircraft make.

Already discussed and debunked....CF-18 wannabes can't fly forever like Sea Kings.

[rotary]

Already discussed and debunked....CF-18 wannabes can't fly forever like Sea Kings.

Discussed, but certainly not debunked. Probably why various countries are increasing orders for Super's so they can escort the bomb truck should it be needed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Discussed, but certainly not debunked. Probably why various countries are increasing orders for Super's so they can escort the bomb truck should it be needed.

Not Canada, which is buying nothing. Defense procurement in Canada is now officially broken. No F-35s...no Super Hornets...just more of Super Nothing.

[rotary]

Not Canada, which is buying nothing. Defense procurement in Canada is now officially broken. No F-35s...no Super Hornets...just more of Super Nothing.

At least not until after we complete an overview of our requirements and then a competition to see who best meets them. luckily nowadays we have stopped just rushing out to buy something shiny from the first vender to come along.

[bush_cheney2004]

At least not until after we complete an overview of our requirements and then a competition to see who best meets them. luckily nowadays we have stopped just rushing out to buy something shiny from the first vender to come along.

Not just nowadays.....Canada has a long history of stopping or never even starting when it comes to defence procurements. That's why the shipyards have forgotten how to build warships. No worries...even tiny nations like Sweden will manufacture aircraft at very high prices when/if Canada ever decides to buy. Maybe look into leasing....like a car.

[rotary]

Not just nowadays.....Canada has a long history of stopping or never even starting when it comes to defence procurements. That's why the shipyards have forgotten how to build warships. No worries...even tiny nations like Sweden will manufacture aircraft at very high prices when/if Canada ever decides to buy. Maybe look into leasing....like a car.

Ok, then maybe we could lease a few F 35's, and we'll send them back when that super hot engine rubs it's turbine blades and quits. Will you agree to provide SAR for the pilot who has to eject a hundred miles north of Tuktoyaktuk?

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, then maybe we could lease a few F 35's, and we'll send them back when that super hot engine rubs it's turbine blades and quits. Will you agree to provide SAR for the pilot who has to eject a hundred miles north of Tuktoyaktuk?

Yes...we already do that anyway. The U.S. Military Sealift Command towed Canada's disabled HMCS Protecteur from Hawaii to Esquimalt...sad.

[rotary]

Yes...we already do that anyway. The U.S. Military Sealift Command towed Canada's disabled HMCS Protecteur from Hawaii to Esquimalt...sad.

That's maybe why the pilots don't really want to fly this single engine hunk a junk.

[Wilber]

That's simply not true. Also the immense cost of 5th generation aircraft's means they probably wont be put in really dangerous situations.

In any plausible situation where we are competing for air superiority... airports, runways, and AA batteries will be destroyed or degraded by cruise missiles or from stealth bombers. Any real combat scenarios are almost certainly going to be BVR (beyond visual range).

Here's a rundown from an 11 year F16 pilot.

I know Nowhere near as cool as watching Maverick and the Goose shoot down a dozen migs from close range!

So your F-16 pilot had never been in air to air combat. Almost all the air to air fighting in Vietnam and all the air to air in the Arab Israeli conflicts was within visual range. The F4 had to be retrofitted with a gun because of that and every fighter built since has been equipped with a gun, including the F-35. and F-22

What do you plan on doing with your missile equipped Predators that take 4 hrs to get from Calgary to Vancouver? Unless of course there is a stiff Chinook blowing over the rocks, in which case they will be lucky not to wind up in Saskatchewan.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Wilber