Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Argus]

44 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

All to purchase a plane that may be nearing the end of its production run.

And a plane which will presumably stay on, meaning the air force will have the additional cost of maintaining two different kinds of fighters - if they ever buy another type in their 'open and transparent' competition.

The uncomfortable attempting to justify the indefensible. That was how it looked as government ministers Harjit Sajjan, Judy Foote and Navdeep Bains delivered the news that Ottawa will sole source the interim purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornet fighter jets. They appeared to be secretly ashamed at the trumpery of it all, as well they should have been.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-liberals-jet-purchase-a-political-solution-to-political-problem

[segnosaur]

14 hours ago, Rue said:

Of course not Argus and I don't mean to revisit the issue because Derek and I and others debated it ad infinitum but I argue it suits exactly what we need.

I think 18 superhornets on an iterim basis is a necessity at this point.
 

Why is it a necessity?

The Canadian military has already stated that with the latest upgrades that the CF18 fleet would be operational for approximately a decade. Not that that's ideal, but we should be able to have enough time to run a proper competition before they need to be retired.

 

However why not the Gripen E ? 

...

• will carry more then enough smart bombs to perform precision ground operations

 

Who decides how many smart bombs is "more than enough"? Sounds like a pretty vague claim.

While the Gripen can carry a fairly wide range of weapons, it still can't carry the variety of weapons (as well as the total load) of either the F35 or the Super Hornet.

 

Quote

 

• has comparable avionics suites and in some cases at this time superior system

[/quote]

 

Comparable or superior to what?

Perhaps it may match the F18, but the systems in the F35 far surpase anything available.

 

Quote

 

• very easy jet to upgrade / change systems
• flies at 1/2 the cost per hour of the F-18E Super Hornet

 

Keep in mind that those issues are not necessarily guaranteed.

One reason why the F35 may be preferrable is that the plane is expected to be in production for decades to come, and will be used by probably over a dozen countries. This means that in the future, it should be relatively easy to get replacements or spare parts. The Gripen has a much smaller number of users, and its doubtful the plane will be produced far into the future. We could eventually find ourselves with an orphan plane, with spare parts becoming exceedingly hard to find (which drives up the cost of maintenance).

Here's something to consider: The F35 has won competitions in almost a dozen countries... countries that were members of the consortium and countries that were not. Countries that were members of NATO and countries that are not. The Gripen has been ordered by only 7 countries, and one of them (Brazil) may have chosen the Gripen as punishment to the U.S. for its spying activities. If its so obvious that the Gripen is superior to all other options, why are so few countries on board with it?

Edited November 23, 2016 by segnosaur
edited to fix tags

[?Impact]

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

Today's fighters are not dog fighters. They are missile platforms that launch at long distances.

Exactly, we need to understand the mission and then pick the right aircraft. Why are we spending billions to fly around a fighter pilot when an unmanned platform would address most of our requirements and offer may superior advantages.

[DogOnPorch]

That was the exact same attitude expressed before 1966..when the missile platform got its ass handed to it by antiquated MiG-17s.

But we'd never make that mistake again...

Edited November 23, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

That was the exact same attitude expressed before 1966

You are right, there has been zero progress in computer technology in the past 50 years. We are still flying vacuum tubes with less power than a slide rule.

[DogOnPorch]

8 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

You are right, there has been zero progress in computer technology in the past 50 years. We are still flying vacuum tubes with less power than a slide rule.

The EXACT same attitude:

Pro-tip from the hombres over at TOPGUN: why choose? Learn to kill will BOTH guns and missiles.

The duty of the fighter pilot is to patrol his area of the sky, and shoot down any enemy fighters in that area. Anything else is rubbish.

---Manfred Von Richthofen

[segnosaur]

31 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Exactly, we need to understand the mission and then pick the right aircraft.

While that might be noble concept, I think our history in military conflicts and self defense should provide a few clear guidelines about what we will need from an aircraft. We know (based on the size of our territory) that we will need something with a long range. We also know that we routinely engage in missions with allied countries, so interoperability is important.

The other issue is that if we attempt to define the mission and pick the right aircraft is that we may be hampering future governments. It may be preferable to buy a plane that exceeds what we expect from it, with the idea that we won't put future governments in the position of saying "We'd like to do mission X, but a purchase decision 2 decades ago means we can't participate".

We should have enough information about what we need out of our planes now. So at the very least we should begin the competition process.

Why are we spending billions to fly around a fighter pilot when an unmanned platform would address most of our requirements and offer may superior advantages.

Unmanned drones may be the "way of the future", and will gradually take on a larger and larger role. But the technology is not yet able to provide the required functionality to replace manned fighter jets, and probably won't be for at least a couple of decades. The biggest issue is probably situational awareness... fighter pilots can easily look around and see the entire sky and react instantly. Drones on the other hand don't have the ability to transmit enough data so that their pilots can see all around them, and delays in transmitting/receiving signals would put them at a disadvantage.

 

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

The biggest issue is probably situational awareness... fighter pilots can easily look around and see the entire sky and react instantly.

That is an antiquated notion of situational awareness. If you can see the aircraft, then it is time to kiss your ass goodbye. The dogfight is a leftover from World War II, it doesn't occur in reality any more.

[Wilber]

8 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

That is an antiquated notion of situational awareness. If you can see the aircraft, then it is time to kiss your ass goodbye. The dogfight is a leftover from World War II, it doesn't occur in reality any more.

Not at all. Someone looking at a computer screen thousands of miles away won't be able to make the split second decisions required in combat with something that is not just a target, but actively trying to gain an advantage and kill you. Such an aircraft will need artificial intelligence that will enable it to react to constantly changing circumstances and form a plan of its own.

The only real reference points we have since Viet Nam are the Falklands War and various Arab Israeli conflicts and almost all of that air to air combat was subsonic and within visual range. The most successful air to air missile in history is the AIM 9 which is a short range dogfighting missile. If we buy only one aircraft, it will have to be effective at both BVR and close combat as well as a fighter bomber.

[segnosaur]

48 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

That was the exact same attitude expressed before 1966..when the missile platform got its ass handed to it by antiquated MiG-17s.

 

First of all, keep in mind that the U.S. did put itself at a disadvantage during some of the conflicts by the various rules of engagement it was under. For example, I believe they were required to identify aircraft visually before shooting them down. Without that requirement, the use of long-range missiles would have been much more effective.

Secondly, as another poster pointed out, technology does change. Missiles are more accurate today than they were in the past, and other avionics have also improved.

 

[Rue]

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

Why is it a necessity?

The Canadian military has already stated that with the latest upgrades that the CF18 fleet would be operational for approximately a decade. Not that that's ideal, but we should be able to have enough time to run a proper competition before they need to be retired.

 

However why not the Gripen E ? 

...

• will carry more then enough smart bombs to perform precision ground operations

 

Who decides how many smart bombs is "more than enough"? Sounds like a pretty vague claim.

While the Gripen can carry a fairly wide range of weapons, it still can't carry the variety of weapons (as well as the total load) of either the F35 or the Super Hornet.

 

I agree with the choice of Gripen E for the reasons I attached as well.

The larger, heavier updated F18 Superhornet is just an updated F18. Its not a bad jet. I prefer it to the F35 but its not the best fit for Canada compared to the Gripen for cost reasons and operational restrictions it has the Gripen does not.

The purchase allows a smoke screen to avoid dealing with the F35 issue.  It allows the phony Liberals to have the option to wait and still  choose the F35 if it ever flies or if its scrapped have a way out.

You don't need 5 more years to choose the Gripen. The Liberals have rejected the Gripen  choice as the Conservatives did in the past.

The fact is the Swedes can't deal or compete with the political influence and  tentacles the US defence industry network and lobby has on and in Canada and that means we are going to be force fed the F35 or an alternative fighter from the US replacing the Hornet once the updated F18 goes out of production.

This is about politics not best choices. The US military industrial complex has a choke hold on the Canadian economy because of the amount of jobs it offers through its network. There is not a damn thing Trudeau can do about it other then tap dance and avoid the forgone conclusion.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Rue

[segnosaur]

42 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The biggest issue is probably situational awareness... fighter pilots can easily look around and see the entire sky and react instantly.

That is an antiquated notion of situational awareness. If you can see the aircraft, then it is time to kiss your ass goodbye. The dogfight is a leftover from World War II, it doesn't occur in reality any more.

While I don't think our pilots will regularly be engaging in dogfights, that doesn't mean situational awareness is no longer relevant.

For example, our planes may need to approach aircraft in order to identify them visually and/or escort them through our air space. (Although this might not be relevant in a combat situation, it may well be important during regular patrols.). Or they may be in a close-air support situation with targets on the ground, in which case being able to see the entire terrain (to differentiate potential targets/threats from innocents)

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

our planes may need to approach aircraft in order to identify them visually and/or escort them through our air space.

So what are the requirements there?

Stealth? - no. Supersonic? - no. Weapons? - minimal, etc.

[Boges]

It's nice we're still going to be using the Jets that were in 1996's Independence Day. 

[Boges]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

That is an antiquated notion of situational awareness. If you can see the aircraft, then it is time to kiss your ass goodbye. The dogfight is a leftover from World War II, it doesn't occur in reality any more.

I believe that philosophy caused a lot of losses in the Vietnam War. The US assumed the F4 would never need to engage in a dogfight so it had crappy mobility and many were destroyed. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Boges

[segnosaur]

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

I agree with the choice of Gripen E for the reasons I attached as well.The larger, heavier updated F18 purchase allows a smoke screen to avoid dealing with the F35. It allows them to chose the F35 five years from now when everyone forgets their promise

Or, more likely, in 5 years to rig the competition in favor of the F18 by pointing at the extra cost of running a mixed fleet of aircraft.

. you don't need 5 more years to choose a fighter when the Gripen is there and makes the most sense.

The fact that you keep claiming it makes the most sense does not make it so.

Purchasing updated F18's that are goingt o be out of production once are 18 are built was just a political avoidance technique.

Unless of course Boeing slows down on their orders in order to keep the production lines open in the expectation that there will be further purchases in the future.

And speaking of production lines... I already pointed out that the F35 will likely be built for decades to come. The Gripen has about a half dozen customers. Do you really think they're going to keep the Gripen production line open for anywhere near as long as for the F35?

There is zero reason, zero to ignore the Gripen

Plenty of reasons. You just seem to ignore them. We've got: smaller capacity to carry weapons (as well as less flexibility on what weapons are carried), no advanced 'helmet' like in the F35 (giving the pilot ability to 'look down' though the plane), probable shorter production run. I'm sure we can dig up others.

Its about politics. The US military industrial complex has a choke hold on the Canadian economy. Its just the way it is.

Ah yes, when in doubt blame it on the "military industrial complex" rather than the capabilities of the plane.

[segnosaur]

11 minutes ago, Boges said:

That is an antiquated notion of situational awareness. If you can see the aircraft, then it is time to kiss your ass goodbye. The dogfight is a leftover from World War II, it doesn't occur in reality any more.

I believe that philosophy causes a lot of losses in the Vietnam War. The US assumed the F4 would never need to engage in a dogfight so it had crappy mobility and many were lost. 

This was already discussed previously.

Part of the reason there was more dogfighting than expected in Vietnam may have been because the rules of engagement required visual identification of their targets. Remove that requirement (as will probably happen in future conflicts) and long-range missile attacks become more effective.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

That is an antiquated notion of situational awareness. If you can see the aircraft, then it is time to kiss your ass goodbye. The dogfight is a leftover from World War II, it doesn't occur in reality any more.

No not at all.  Please ask a fighter pilot. Dog fighting is just one aspect of having  being able to manouver a jet. Its all about dodging missiles locked in to you using all kinds of manouvers not just jamming devices. Today's pilots have to Master their craft at ridiculous speeds getting them to spin, turn, dive, climb at angles and velocities that n o computer can do, its about pilots able to withstand physical forces and react with their reflexes as never before-its basically the same abilities they needed in dog fights only thousands of times harder but this dog fight you think is antiquated is not, its the basic dance moves the boxer learns before he can proceed further. Its not antiquated to say a boxer has to learn to skip rope, or develop lateral vision or dance. As technology advances the basics become even more important.

In today's air battles craft can see each other but you missed the point. The manouvers they have to do to avoid incoming missiles is an advanced complex version of the manouvers they once did to avoid cannon shots.

I defer to others. The only thing I am an expert on is digging latrines. Mine were works of art. I even look at a jet I vomit. Fighter pilots are not human. They are super beings o put up with all that velocity and not have their kidneys come out their noses.

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

This was already discussed previously.

Part of the reason there was more dogfighting than expected in Vietnam may have been because the rules of engagement required visual identification of their targets. Remove that requirement (as will probably happen in future conflicts) and long-range missile attacks become more effective.

If you're allowed to shoot anything that pops up on your radar then why not just use a drone? 

[bush_cheney2004]

When was Canada's last air combat kill....Korean War ?   

[Rue]

17 minutes ago, Boges said:

I believe that philosophy caused a lot of losses in the Vietnam War. The US assumed the F4 would never need to engage in a dogfight so it had crappy mobility and many were destroyed. 

Interesting you say that. A friend of mine retired from the RAF loved his F4. The Israelis loved them. Don't forget the Brits and Israelis modified them. Reality is any jet gets modified constantly and this is the problem with the F35. The modifications have been so drastic its like its been scrapped and they have started all over again. The attempt for it to be a Warthog and F15 and Stealth Fighter and bomber at the same time has failed. They have tried to jam 5 types of fighter functions into 1, can't be done.

Its computer system defects are beyond repair.  They  will nto be able to rely on the helmet and artificial vision of the helmets. It ain't gonna happen. Unless they modify the structure of the plane drastically to allow plain vision at the turn of the head, it ain't gonna fly no matter how entrenched the powers behind it are.

The decision of Canada not to go with the Gripen is no different then when Israel scrapped its own Tsfir jet and stuck to the F16.

F16's were and are not bad jets but the Tsfir was state of the art and the only reason it was dumped is the same reason we got rid of the Arrow and won't consider the Gripen-military industrial complex politics.

That's the name of the game.

The US will come up with an alternative craft. You can be sure they already have one to replace the F18 hornets. The US Navy like the British Navy wants nothing o do with F35s on carriers.

Let's also get this straight. The F35 is not a stealth craft. To be stealth it can't carry outside guns and missiles and has to limit its weight and that makes it functionally impossible in reality to be stealth and fully protect it. Its also too loud in deserts or rural areas to be stealth even if the radar doesn't pick it up which is a big assumption when its flying low. The sound is deafening.

 

 

[Rue]

15 minutes ago, Boges said:

If you're allowed to shoot anything that pops up on your radar then why not just use a drone? 

Good good point. Many people say drones and pilotless projectiles of all kinds make fighter jets too expensive

and outmoded. Why chance destroying this trillion dollar toy when you can send a pilotless projective or drone in?

They have drones now the size of insects. It means no more dependence on satellite driven vision projectiles which were sometimes blinded by storms and clouds.

But in a sandstorm, doesn't matter what you got, you won't see or hear a damn thing if you are low altitude. So the F35 depends on godo weather to be a tank bustrer.

Now why use F35's as tank busters? Why?  You can carry tank busting projectiles on camels and shoulders now a days or silent  ultra fast helicopters.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

...The US will come up with an alternative craft. You can be sure they already have one to replace the F18 hornets. The US Navy like the British Navy wants nothing o do with F35s on carriers.

 

Correct...the U.S. designs, develops, and produces far more tactical aircraft than Canada ever will.   This thread has more information about U.S. aircraft procurements than Canadian.   Such comparisons continue to fill the void and lack of action by Canada on this "file". 

Israel has ordered 33 F-35 Lightning IIs with options for 17 more.   

[segnosaur]

29 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

our planes may need to approach aircraft in order to identify them visually and/or escort them through our air space.

So what are the requirements there?

Stealth? - no

While they may not need stealth if they are on a mission that involves visual identification, we aren't going to have multiple planes each with a different role. We will have one plane, which may use stealth when in combat, and other capabilities when not engaged in combat.

Oh, and even if it is required to visually identify its target, it doesn't mean that stealth wouldn't serve some purpose, if the plane being identified is hostile.

Supersonic? - no.

Actually, being able to go supersonic would actually be useful here (as would the ability of the F35 to "sort of" supercruise.) If a plane needs to be intercepted it makes sense to intercept it as soon as possible. Being able to go supersonic would help with that.

Weapons? - minimal, etc.

Again depends on the situation. We are unlikely to have a mixed fleet, so while our planes may not need a full complement of weapons for one mission, they may need them for others.

[bush_cheney2004]

Manitoba's premier is not pleased about the proposed Canadian F-18 Super Band-Aid....

Manitoba Fights Back !