F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[SupersonicMax]

Not really. All it shows is what aircraft were hit and which of those were either damaged (didn't say whether or not damaged beyond repair or how severely damaged) or destroyed. Also it doesn't list how many missions each type flew.

At least the pilot is back to base (and can fly the very next day) and the aircraft can be used for spare parts at worst.  But in books I've read about the Gulf War, they were back on the line in 1 week.  An ejected pilot, and captured pilot is a big liability for an army/air force/navy

While the SH might be a good performer on it's own, compared to other aircraft of it's generation, it's a pig. Thrust to Weight might help you accelerate and climb faster, but overall, the current hornet is a little more agile. It all depends on what type of performace you are talking about.

Thrust to weight can be related to acceleration, sustained Gs (Turn rate & turn radius, consequently) which are the things that are important in a fight..  Be able to turn faster than your opponent, inside its turn circle and be able to bug efficiently.  Don't try to teach me aerodynamics, it is my speciality.  I've been into that for about 8 years now and I do have formal education (both university and military) on it. 

How can you say the Super Hornet is less agile that our curernt version?  Fact or speculation?

Exactly why alot of people don't like the SuperHornet, it was never a real replacement for the F-14.

In what context would the Hornet not be able to do what the F-14's were initially meant to do? 

Overall, the JSF will be alot cheaper in the long run because it already has current technology and is alot more maintenance friendly, IE F-16 friendly. Having only one engine decreases the cost of flight per hour dramatically.

Not if you factor losses.  You will loose more because of its only engine.  Again, check the flight safety system, you'll see many Hornets had engines problems.  To be fair, divide the number of occurence by 2 (twice as many chance of having engine problems with 2 engines).  If they had 1 engine, they would have lost that many airplanes.  That can become fairly expensive at 36M$ a piece, not to count the pilot.  Have you worked on the F-35?  How can you tell it is maintenance friendly?  How can you tell the Super Hornet isn't maintenance friendly?  I thought it was a totally different airplane on the maintainers' perspective (so you say).

The technology on the Super Hornet is probably as recent as on the JSF.  Can you name a few things that aren't up to par with the JSF, technology wise?

Stealth is something that gives you an upperhand in an aerial battle. It's what makes the Raptor such a dominate force in the sky, without it, it's just a fancy uber expensive F-15 with great radar. The JSF can carry enough internal stores and fuel for it's missions, and there is also AAR which always extends range. No one yet knows for certain the capability of the JSF anyways so it's pointless to speculate. What is certain though is the Superhornet and it's outdated airframe, old, blotchy avionics and weapons systems and horrible reputation in the fighter community. There is a reason why only the USN operates them and why Australia is only buying them to fill the hole for a real replacement - it's a polished C/D model hornet turd. Only reason why some people on this forum like it is because it has two engines. I'm just glad that the people who make the real decisions don't consider only that one "advantage".

The JSF isn't a Raptor.  2 different mission.  Air Superiority vs Multi Role.  In an Air Superiority role, sure I can buy that stealth is good.  However, on a multi role, that you WILL need to put bombs on pylons, it's not something that is that important anymore.  Again, did you read my post on the typical loads of the Hornets in Kosovo?  AAR doesn't usually go past the FLOT.  If you don't have the range (don't forget, you're fully loaded at that point, you burn more gas).  Range is an issue.  They will need jugs.

Outdated airframe?  How so? 

Horrible avionics?  What do you know about avionics and flying with it?  AFAIK, their radars are very similar, which is a very big piece of a fighter's avionics suite. 

Weapon systems?  It uses the same the JSF will use.  AMRAMS, AIM 9 (possibly X with Off-Boresight and Helmet Mouted Sight), standard Mk 82 for old fashion drops, Laser guided, GPS guided, whatever you want.  What can the JSF bring other than what the Super HOrnet (or even our Hornet) can bring?

It's not ONLY because it has 2 engines. It IS cheaper to buy (can buy more), you will loose less, it's more combat persistent, it's somethign we are already familiar with and overall, I think think the extra kit on the F-35 is worth the price difference at all.  (you failed to tell me WHAT the JSF can bring more than the SH other than being stealthy...)

Anyways, I'm a bit fed up with arguing with you over that.  You seem to pull out facts out of you *** (sorry for the expression) and have no experience or source to back it up. 

Technically, there are SM-2 IR versions out there and they're a lot bigger than a MANPADS.

And no, I wouldn't say it's "very possible" that a second engine will survive a close detonation of even a MANPADS warhead. That's a lot of chunks of prefragged steel flying into an engine spinning really quickly and with tight tolerances. "Remotely possible" yes. Maybe even "somewhat possible" for a little while at least. Not "very possible".

SA-2 Guideline?  IR?  Never, ever heard of that.  And even if it did exists, you still need a radar for initial guidance.  It MAY use IR for final guidance, but I've never heard of it. 

Missiles rarely have direct hits.  There's a reason it's call a missile and there is a reason there's not only a contact fuse on it.  I think it is very possible that 1 engine survives.  You'll rarely have a hit directly from behind.  Usually on the beam sector if it actually explodes near the aircraft.  There is a shield in between the engines for that specific reason (and it is very rigid).  On a dumb, non-manoevring target, you'll probably be able to kill both engines.  However, aircrews are trained to react to treats like that. Read the military litterature a little. You will read stories of that happenning.  I'll give you some titles as soon as I have a minute to dig the books out. 

 

[belka]

Thrust to weight can be related to acceleration, sustained Gs (Turn rate & turn radius, consequently) which are the things that are important in a fight..  Be able to turn faster than your opponent, inside its turn circle and be able to bug efficiently.  Don't try to teach me aerodynamics, it is my speciality.  I've been into that for about 8 years now and I do have formal education (both university and military) on it. 

How can you say the Super Hornet is less agile that our curernt version?  Fact or speculation?

From someone who has flown a Superhornet:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/flying-into-trouble/2006/12/29/1166895477918.html

From RAAF, so you can believe it if you wish.

In what context would the Hornet not be able to do what the F-14's were initially meant to do? 

The F-14 was the USN's primary air superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor and tac reccy platform. The SH is non of these things. Like you said,  it's a multi-role fighter and this does nothing for what the USN needs.

The technology on the Super Hornet is probably as recent as on the JSF.  Can you name a few things that aren't up to par with the JSF, technology wise?

http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_technology.htm
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003846.html
http://www.indiadefence.com/F35JSF.htm
From above:"For IN the “prize catch” (over the Superhornet) will be the F-35’s sensors and the heart of it is the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, based on the AN/APG-77 AESA set developed for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The AESA set consists of an array of Transmitter-Receiver (T/R) modules linked by high-speed processors. Different T/R modules in the array can be allocated to different tasks providing wide range of functions, thus acting as a multimode radar, active jamming system, passive electronic defense system, and communications system. The system generates signals over a wide range of frequencies and pulse patterns in an unpredictable fashion to ensure Low Probability of Intercept (LPI), successfully “fooling“ enemy Radar Warning Receivers (RWR). "

The pictures shows (to scale) the F-35C and F-18E frontal profiles. Its amazing that there is no growth in sectional area considering that the F-35C swallows two 2500 pound and two 350 pound weapon envelopes, holds 36.6% (2,441 kg) more fuel, weighs pretty much the same and had all kind of stealth and STOVL considerations. Going single engine is one of the major factors that made this package possible. With two smaller engines, you have a wider powerplant package. It also makes putting the weapon bays to each side of the engine and immediately behind the intakes impossible to do. When you can have a single engine which make essentially the same thrust (43,000 vs 2 x22,000 lbs), using the single engine configuration permits tighter packaging, greater mass efficiency and (usually) better efficiency. In combat, having one or two engines doesn't make a difference, once you lose one, you are done either way.

The JSF isn't a Raptor.  2 different mission.  Air Superiority vs Multi Role.  In an Air Superiority role, sure I can buy that stealth is good.  However, on a multi role, that you WILL need to put bombs on pylons, it's not something that is that important anymore.  Again, did you read my post on the typical loads of the Hornets in Kosovo?  AAR doesn't usually go past the FLOT.  If you don't have the range (don't forget, you're fully loaded at that point, you burn more gas).  Range is an issue.  They will need jugs.

Obviously the JSF isn't a Raptor, but Stealth always has it's advantages regardless of mission. Again, depending on mission requirements, you can either choose to send the aircraft with externals or not. I have seen many instances where the Raptor was sent in with External tanks to intercept Bears, why, because Stealth in that case was not needed. When it is, it will be utilized.

What can the JSF bring other than what the Super HOrnet (or even our Hornet) can bring?

I had a good laugh at that one. The fact that you are comparing a 2nd/3rd gen fighter to a 5th gen is nothing short of hilarity.

It's not ONLY because it has 2 engines. It IS cheaper to buy (can buy more), you will loose less, it's more combat persistent, it's somethign we are already familiar with and overall, I think think the extra kit on the F-35 is worth the price difference at all.  (you failed to tell me WHAT the JSF can bring more than the SH other than being stealthy...)

Anyways, I'm a bit fed up with arguing with you over that.  You seem to pull out facts out of you *** (sorry for the expression) and have no experience or source to back it up. 

Here is an article from Avweekly:

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will “redefine the concept of multirole strike” aircraft, Lockheed Martin officials say, but they offer few details to flesh out that claim.

Still, while the future concept of operations, electronic attack (EA) capability and derivative options remain undefined, at least publicly, some capabilities can be picked out of their purposely vague descriptions.

Starting from the notion that new hardware is the least likely addition to the aircraft and that it has an open architecture for avionics, look for the big multirole capability additions to involve electronic attack.

Because of the ability to penetrate while using low-probability-of-intercept radar and passive sensors, the JSF will not operate in proximity to current, so-called fourth-generation aircraft. It will instead roam well-defended enemy airspace while feeding precision targeting data to nonstealthy aircraft with standoff-range weapons.

Tailored for EA

The F-35 aircraft is being designed to deliver electronic attack (jamming, spoofing and pulses of energy) with the same ease that it can deliver explosive weapons. Moreover, Lockheed officials say the F-35 – first of all a combat aircraft – will have full 360-degree awareness of what is going on around it.

That presents an interesting dilemma for EA versus kinetic weaponry. The new AIM-9X air-to-air missile can perform high off-boresight shots without turning the aircraft’s nose toward the target. However, delivering electronic effects require specialized antennae pointed toward the target. As far as is known, JSF has only its advanced active, electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar antenna in the nose to pump out its electronic firepower. It would then have the weakness of any AESA array in that it is flat with a field of view of less than 180 degrees, perhaps an effective field of regard for effective attack of 60-90 degrees.

Some radar specialists and Air Force planners already say they anticipate flying the F-35s in line, with the first aircraft being passive and the second emitting and passing target information to the first so that it can remain undetected. Therefore, it appears that without an add-on antenna, the JSF’s EA capability will be limited to the forward quarter.

However, within that field the electronic effects generator can be routed through the AESA radar, which allows the F-35 to invade, blind or fool enemy sensors and radars at ranges of up to hundreds of miles.

Sensors

Lockheed officials do admit that the F-35’s sensor capabilities include advanced electronic surveillance allowing development of an instantaneous electronic order of battle – what’s emitting and from where.

Along with EA, the JSF will take on the mission of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. So instead of depending on a few specialized high-demand aircraft like Rivet Joint (for signals intelligence), Cobra Ball (measurement and signature intelligence) or Compass Call (EA) that can’t venture into enemy airspace, a fleet of F-35s will be able to conduct those missions deep into enemy territory to take advantage of physics (by being nearer the targets) while deepening the areas of surveillance.

They won’t say if information warfare is part of the package. Info warfare is generally the bailiwick of Commando Solo and Compass Call (including network penetration and attack), but with software upgrades radar specialists expect the capability to appear soon.

It seems to me that the F-35's entire concept is to fight smart rather than to fight rough, taking advantage of emerging technologies in some ways far in advance of what was available to the Raptor's designers back in the late 1980s and early 90s. When the potential of F-35's future systems integration is realized, if successful, the platform will stand to be a significant 'game-changer' beyond most current comprehension. Now, I am no hardlined supporter of the F-35, but to think that a barely 4.5 gen fighter in the Superhornet is a better aircraft is ludicrious. In the LONG term, a Superhornet fleet is NOT the right choice for Canada. A JSF purchase would open us up to new technology innovations that the SH could only dream to have in a mabye Block 5 configuration and in the end it's just a quick re-design of our current Hornets.

Now, to me it seems like your only reason to have the SH is it's two-engines, which brings added operating costs, two engines always does, this dates back to WWII. So the whole SH vs JSF is cheaper arguement is void. You WILL spend more maintaining an old aircraft in the SH, why do you think that our Hornets are not in Afganistan? The costs would be crazy. Are you AFRAID to fly on one engine or are you just ignorant to the fact that the JSF is an overall better aircraft than the SuperHornet? $4billion worth of JSF's are alot more COST effective than $4billion worth of SH's in the LONG term.

 

[SupersonicMax]

From someone who has flown a Superhornet:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/flying-into-trouble/2006/12/29/1166895477918.html

From RAAF, so you can believe it if you wish.

Yup. Australia isn't Canada.  DIfferent needs.  They don't have the United States just below and they are on a (relatively) small island, surrounded by potential threats, not on a vast land with Russians poking their nose up North once in a while.  What maybe a good fighter for one country doesn'T mean it will be a good one for an other.  The guys isn't a pilot, but a defence analyst. Flying in it once doesn't give you credibility as to analysing the capacity of the airplane.

The F-14 was the USN's primary air superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor and tac reccy platform. The SH is non of these things. Like you said,  it's a multi-role fighter and this does nothing for what the USN needs.

The F-18E/F can intercept, can reccee and can defend the fleet.  It can also jam, bomb, escort, FAC, refuel and it can do more than one role in one mission.  Multi-role INCLUDES the former Tomcat roles. It actually does the F-14 role, the S-3 Vicking role, the EA-6B role and the Hornet's role.

http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_technology.htm
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003846.html
http://www.indiadefence.com/F35JSF.htm
From above:"For IN the “prize catch” (over the Superhornet) will be the F-35’s sensors and the heart of it is the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, based on the AN/APG-77 AESA set developed for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The AESA set consists of an array of Transmitter-Receiver (T/R) modules linked by high-speed processors. Different T/R modules in the array can be allocated to different tasks providing wide range of functions, thus acting as a multimode radar, active jamming system, passive electronic defense system, and communications system. The system generates signals over a wide range of frequencies and pulse patterns in an unpredictable fashion to ensure Low Probability of Intercept (LPI), successfully “fooling“ enemy Radar Warning Receivers (RWR). "

Take a look at the APG-79 (the current Super HOrnet radar).  It too is an AESA-type radar.  So the radar have similar capabilities...

The pictures shows (to scale) the F-35C and F-18E frontal profiles. Its amazing that there is no growth in sectional area considering that the F-35C swallows two 2500 pound and two 350 pound weapon envelopes, holds 36.6% (2,441 kg) more fuel, weighs pretty much the same and had all kind of stealth and STOVL considerations. Going single engine is one of the major factors that made this package possible. With two smaller engines, you have a wider powerplant package. It also makes putting the weapon bays to each side of the engine and immediately behind the intakes impossible to do. When you can have a single engine which make essentially the same thrust (43,000 vs 2 x22,000 lbs), using the single engine configuration permits tighter packaging, greater mass efficiency and (usually) better efficiency. In combat, having one or two engines doesn't make a difference, once you lose one, you are done either way.

It's actually 20% (vice 36%) more fuel but....  Is it worth getting a single engine aircraft for these reasons (mostly Stealth, since we're not getting STOVL) when in most of our mission profile, you'll need to put pylons anyways for gas and extra ammo?  If we won't have stealth anyways, why bother with internal weapons?  For OUR COUNTRY I don't think it's worth it. We have a large area to defend at home and we don' thave bases every 200 nm.  Engines will quit, no matter what you say and think.  Ask any pilot, most probably have stories about having to shut down an engine.  As for having 1 vs 2 engines in combat.  Yup, you're done no matter what.  You probably won't complete the mission.  However with 1 engine you CAN'T COME BACK.  YOU HAVE TO EJECT, POSSIBLY IN ENNEMY TERRITORY.  You loose and aircraft and an aircrew.  It's not good for the pilot or the organization. With a second engine, it will bring you home if it works and it can be fixed.  The pilot can be up fighting again the next day.

I had a good laugh at that one. The fact that you are comparing a 2nd/3rd gen fighter to a 5th gen is nothing short of hilarity.

I'm sorry, the F-35 doesn't bring any weapons that the Superhornet can't carry, or even our Hornet can (will) carry.  BTW, Hornet is a 4th generation fighter.  If that' so hilarious, what will it bring more that the SH or the Hornet for that matter?

It seems to me that the F-35's entire concept is to fight smart rather than to fight rough, taking advantage of emerging technologies in some ways far in advance of what was available to the Raptor's designers back in the late 1980s and early 90s. When the potential of F-35's future systems integration is realized, if successful, the platform will stand to be a significant 'game-changer' beyond most current comprehension. Now, I am no hardlined supporter of the F-35, but to think that a barely 4.5 gen fighter in the Superhornet is a better aircraft is ludicrious. In the LONG term, a Superhornet fleet is NOT the right choice for Canada.

Many projects claimed to be THE answer to the next fighter aircraft and failed miserably.  IMHO,  you haven't proven that the F-35 will have superior technology that will justify a 30 some off US$ extra.  I'm not saying the SH is a BETTER aircraft in general, but I think it's a MORE SUITABLE aircraft for our needs here in Canada.  The advantages the JSF bring compared to the Hornet are minimal at most and I do not think they justify the price tag.  And just like you said  IF SUCCESFUL, it will be a good fighter.  Otherwise, it will just be an other expensive piece of kit that doesn't really do anything better than any other 4.5th generation aircraft.

A JSF purchase would open us up to new technology innovations that the SH could only dream to have in a mabye Block 5 configuration and in the end it's just a quick re-design of our current Hornets.

I thought you said it's a completely different airplane than the current Hornet?  What are these technology innovations you are talking about? 

 

[cobbler]

From someone who has flown a Superhornet:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/flying-into-trouble/2006/12/29/1166895477918.html

From RAAF, so you can believe it if you wish.

Oh Hell NO!

That is from a man who has flown IN a Super Hornet.
I'd be surprised if he had ever actually flown so much as an ultralight or a cessna.

Carlo Kopp, aka the sorry excuse for a human who wrote that opinion piece of garbage, is a self-proclaimed defence analyst, in reality, and qualification he is a mobile (cell) phone engineer. Who owns a military aircraft interest group.

It is certainly not "from the RAAF", as he is despised throughough RAAF circles for spouting pure uninformed, fantasy garbage to the media every couple of weeks.

He has never spent a day in uniform, which wouldn't even be an issue if had even the slightest amount of credibility. Yet he doesn't even have the lowest of security clearances, somehow it doesnt stop him from thinking he knows everything.

The man is a germ of a human being. You dirty these forums by linking to him.

Hopefully that covers that.

 

[aesop081]

the S-3 Vicking role,

Only one of them. I have yet to see a SH carry out ASW.

the EA-6B role and the Hornet's role.

To be fair, only one version of the SH will fill the roles of the Prowler.

 

[SupersonicMax]

CDN Aviator, yup, that's what I meant for both your statements.  The S-3 didn't do much ASW post-1990. Its misson shifted to fleet AAR and Bombing then. 

As for the EA-6B, the F-18G Growler does that job now. Still the same airframe with a different sensor package onboard.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

SA-2 Guideline?  IR?  Never, ever heard of that.  And even if it did exists, you still need a radar for initial guidance.  It MAY use IR for final guidance, but I've never heard of it.

SM-2. Some versions have the seeker package from the Stinger for TIRH if TSARH is jammed.  The SA-2 has optical backup, not IR.

Missiles rarely have direct hits.  There's a reason it's call a missile and there is a reason there's not only a contact fuse on it.  I think it is very possible that 1 engine survives.  You'll rarely have a hit directly from behind.  Usually on the beam sector if it actually explodes near the aircraft.  There is a shield in between the engines for that specific reason (and it is very rigid).   On a dumb, non-manoevring target, you'll probably be able to kill both engines.  However, aircrews are trained to react to treats like that. Read the military litterature a little. You will read stories of that happenning.  I'll give you some titles as soon as I have a minute to dig the books out. 

Err...the reason it's called a missile has nothing to do with missing.

The proximity fuse on the missile ensures the warhead detonates at the optimal position to down the aircraft. That may or may not mean a contact hit, depending on the type of warhead.

An IR system will generally detonate right behind the aircraft, because IR has issues with generating lead angles. It's an inefficient homing method that usually leads to the weapon approaching the aircraft from behind, even if it's fired from the beam.  That's going to spray a cone of fragments out in front of the missile, and through the target. The shielding is not going to stop that for the simple reason that it's in the wrong place. It's also meant to keep engine parts from flying out, not to keep missile fragments from flying through the engine. Even an A-10 has trouble with missile fragments, and it's got a lot of armour.

Maneuvering a modern fighter will do a lot to ensure that it isn't hit by a missile, but it won't do much to stop both engines from being taken out by the same missile if it does hit. If the engines are right together, there isn't much that can be done at all.

BTW, huge difference in capabilities between the APG-79 and APG-81. They're both AESA on the front end but the back end signal processing is a generation apart. Also, APG-79 isn't LPI.

 

[DevoBab]

It's been mentioned in passing as a possibility before (earlier by me as a mixed force with Super Hornets), but I haven't seen any concrete, defining reasons for the Gripen NG to not be in the running as the next sole fighter purchase. The big minus I can see is the one engine, but we're looking at the JSF as a major possibility and it only has one engine also (and the debate over the importance of two engine continues to rage on).
The older Gripens had a small range, but if what I read is true, the NG has a range of over 4,000km. I haven't found another article or source to confirm that, but if that is the case, that is a better range than all the other aircraft that are being talked about. It is also designed to land on public roads, which seems to be a good fit for Canada and its sparse air bases. Coming from Sweden, it's a NATO country which I would think would make integration fairly smooth (correct me if I am wrong, it is certainly possible). And lastly, the Gripen project site claims throughout that it is a lot cheaper to operate and maintain compared to most other aircraft out there. Apparently it will be available in 2012.

I know it is extremely unlikely, but is there any validity to this idea?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Coming from Sweden, it's a NATO country which I would think would make integration fairly smooth (correct me if I am wrong, it is certainly possible).

I know it is extremely unlikely, but is there any validity to this idea?

At the risk of sounding pedantic, Sweden is not a member of NATO.  That does not mean that their kit would necessarily be any more or less easy to integrate, but I just thought I would point it out.

Cheers

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Oh Hell NO!

That is from a man who has flown IN a Super Hornet.
I'd be surprised if he had ever actually flown so much as an ultralight or a cessna.

Carlo Kopp, aka the sorry excuse for a human who wrote that opinion piece of garbage, is a self-proclaimed defence analyst, in reality, and qualification he is a mobile (cell) phone engineer. Who owns a military aircraft interest group.

It is certainly not "from the RAAF", as he is despised throughough RAAF circles for spouting pure uninformed, fantasy garbage to the media every couple of weeks.

He has never spent a day in uniform, which wouldn't even be an issue if had even the slightest amount of credibility. Yet he doesn't even have the lowest of security clearances, somehow it doesnt stop him from thinking he knows everything.

The man is a germ of a human being. You dirty these forums by linking to him.

Hopefully that covers that.

Hmm the "sparky" of the aviation world, does he want to rename any oldish piece of kit after one of his heros?

 

[aesop081]

That does not mean that their kit would necessarily be any more or less easy to integrate,

As a matter of fact, NATO has already intergrated the JAS 39 in at least one member nation. Simple fact is that SAAB has no problems supplying its aircraft to be compliant with NATO.

 

[belka]

I'm sorry, the F-35 doesn't bring any weapons that the Superhornet can't carry, or even our Hornet can (will) carry.  BTW, Hornet is a 4th generation fighter.  If that' so hilarious, what will it bring more that the SH or the Hornet for that matter?

It's not just the type of weapons that a fighter can carry that determines it's effectiveness. You still have to hit the target.

I just hope you don't think that our C/D Hornets are 4th gen aircraft. Seriously.

Many projects claimed to be THE answer to the next fighter aircraft and failed miserably.  IMHO,  you haven't proven that the F-35 will have superior technology that will justify a 30 some off US$ extra.  I'm not saying the SH is a BETTER aircraft in general, but I think it's a MORE SUITABLE aircraft for our needs here in Canada.  The advantages the JSF bring compared to the Hornet are minimal at most and I do not think they justify the price tag.  And just like you said  IF SUCCESFUL, it will be a good fighter.   Otherwise, it will just be an other expensive piece of kit that doesn't really do anything better than any other 4.5th generation aircraft.

The only current fighter aircraft that are considered 5th gen are the JSF and Raptor. While a fleet of SH's will be good for Canada NOW, it will not carry us into 2040 and beyond. You have to remember that our country likes to keep things for long periods of time, just look at the current Hornet and Herc's for example. The JSF or any new fighter for that matter, is a far better platform for new technologies.

As far as the Grippen NG, it was mainly an aircraft created by Sweden, for Sweden. While the NG is more exportable and is alot more compatible with NATO than the previous versions, the F-35A is the superior aircraft for ALL missions -- A2A, A2G or simply recon. A few magnitudes less detectable, superior tactically achievable performance, longer range, better sensors, better UI, etc. In purely technical and combat capability terms, the F-35 is vastly superior to the Grippen NG. However, the F-35 is also a lot more expensive, a lot noisier, consumes more fuel, and likely will be more expensive to maintain. But these days a lot of times a fighter aircraft is not bought as a tool of defense. Sometimes they are bought as a job creation program and Canada has already poured millions of dollars in JSF job creation. So only time will tell what will happen.

IIRC, I heard that the US was offering Canada "leftover" C/D model hornets for $1 back in the day, but the government passed on it. They rather chose to upgrade the current models to C/D standard for alot more money. How credible this info is, I don't know, but I somehow don't doubt it considering they chose the Hornets main 3rd line contractor in Mirabel, rather then a cheaper bid from a Winnipeg company. Presumably to keep the Quebecois quiet. I just wish I could find more info on this subject.

 

[SupersonicMax]

It's not just the type of weapons that a fighter can carry that determines it's effectiveness. You still have to hit the target.

I believe the Hornet or SH can drop a weapon just as accurately as the JSF.  What makes you think otherwise?

I just hope you don't think that our C/D Hornets are 4th gen aircraft. Seriously.

Hmmm I'm 200% it is a 4th generation JET fighter.

1st gen were MiG 17, Sabre and the likes (1945 to 1955 roughly)  They are the first fighter jets to actually be operationnal.
2nd gen were the Voodoos, Starfighters, MiG 21 and the likes (1955 to 1960 roughly)  They offered improvement on the form of a radar, higher speeds and guided A/A missiles
3rd gen were F-4, Harrier, MiG 23, MiG 25, Su-22 and the likes (1960 to 1970 roughly)  They offered improvement from the previous generation being the first to be considered multi-roles.
4th gen are the F-14 F-15, F-16, F-18, Mirage 2000, MiG 29 (1970 to 1990 roughly)  They came with improved avionics, weapons system and were the first airplane we put enphasis on manoevrability for air combats.
4.5th gen are the Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter, Grippen, Su-33.  They have the same basic characteristics as their pre-decessors, but have improved avionics, limited stealth characteristics.
5th gen are the Raptor and the JSF (however, some will argue that the Eurofighter and possibly the Rafale are 5th gen).  Improved avionics over the 4th gen and stealth characteristics are improvement over the 4th generation. 

This is what's is mostly accepted as the Generation of Fighters.  I doubt the Hornet compare to an F-4 or a MiG 21 (3rd and 2nd gen fighters).  Seriously.

The only current fighter aircraft that are considered 5th gen are the JSF and Raptor. While a fleet of SH's will be good for Canada NOW, it will not carry us into 2040 and beyond. You have to remember that our country likes to keep things for long periods of time, just look at the current Hornet and Herc's for example. The JSF or any new fighter for that matter, is a far better platform for new technologies.

Other than the stealth technology, you still haven't convinced me at all that the JSF has anything better to offer than the SH (for the price difference and the lack of a second engine).  Why would the SH not carry us untill 2040?

As far as the Grippen NG, it was mainly an aircraft created by Sweden, for Sweden. While the NG is more exportable and is alot more compatible with NATO than the previous versions, the F-35A is the superior aircraft for ALL missions -- A2A, A2G or simply recon. A few magnitudes less detectable, superior tactically achievable performance, longer range, better sensors, better UI, etc. In purely technical and combat capability terms, the F-35 is vastly superior to the Grippen NG. However, the F-35 is also a lot more expensive, a lot noisier, consumes more fuel, and likely will be more expensive to maintain. But these days a lot of times a fighter aircraft is not bought as a tool of defense. Sometimes they are bought as a job creation program and Canada has already poured millions of dollars in JSF job creation. So only time will tell what will happen.

Nobody here at this stage of the game can come up with statements like these.  The F-35 haven't hit the operational stage yet, never participated in ANY large scale exercice and have certainly not participated in any conflict.  So, unless you work(ed) closely with the JSF test team, you are in no position to comment on any of the performance of the JSF against other aircraft.  To compare 2 aircrafts, you need actual data.  AFAIK, it never dropped anything yet.  They started the AAR trials on the A version last spring and just started flying the STOVL version (B) last summer.  So, there isn't enough actual data to make comments like that.

 

[DevoBab]

At the risk of sounding pedantic, Sweden is not a member of NATO.  That does not mean that their kit would necessarily be any more or less easy to integrate, but I just thought I would point it out.

Sorry, I'll plead ignorance on that one. I just assumed it would be.

 

[belka]

I believe the Hornet or SH can drop a weapon just as accurately as the JSF.  What makes you think otherwise?

You'll soon find out just how "accurate" the Hornet is. You can't compare an aircraft that was designed using 1970s tech vs one that has the latest weaponry, avionics and radar. It's like saying a 1970's computer can do everything equally that a Pentium 4 can.

Other than the stealth technology, you still haven't convinced me at all that the JSF has anything better to offer than the SH (for the price difference and the lack of a second engine).  Why would the SH not carry us untill 2040?

I've given you enough data and info, yet you still seem to be the only one who doesn't understand why. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you any further. There is more info our there proving why JSF > SH on so many levels and why the USN will phaseout the SH when the JSF's are ready for delivery.

Nobody here at this stage of the game can come up with statements like these.  The F-35 haven't hit the operational stage yet, never participated in ANY large scale exercice and have certainly not participated in any conflict.  So, unless you work(ed) closely with the JSF test team, you are in no position to comment on any of the performance of the JSF against other aircraft.  To compare 2 aircrafts, you need actual data.  AFAIK, it never dropped anything yet.  They started the AAR trials on the A version last spring and just started flying the STOVL version (B) last summer.  So, there isn't enough actual data to make comments like that.

All you can do at this stage is compare data, statistics and information on both aircraft. Everyone already knows what will go into the Grippen NG. The JSF is still growing and will outmatch it due to developments in technology.

One question you have to ask yourself is why no other countries purchased the Superhornet in large quantities for their main fleets. The USN basically had no choice, and the Aussies are only using it until the JSF comes online. Currently, more and more countries are not even CONSIDERING the SH as a viable alternative to more advanced aircraft like the Grippen NG, JSF, Block 60 F-16, etc. IMO, Canada will probably do the same in 2012 or whenever they decide to hold their competition.

 

[time expired]

I would suspect the JSF is going to be under very close scrutiny with
the Democrats running things.
                                  Regards

 

[SupersonicMax]

You'll soon find out just how "accurate" the Hornet is. You can't compare an aircraft that was designed using 1970s tech vs one that has the latest weaponry, avionics and radar. It's like saying a 1970's computer can do everything equally that a Pentium 4 can.

A ballistic table is a ballistic table.  It doesn't take a Pentium 4 to interpret that.  All dumb bomb attacks are visual.  Eyeballs are just as accurate (if not more) as a radar in close range. The INS kit will do the rest for ya, or possibly the A/G radar (for a ranging source).  But at these ranges, the 79 or the 81 will do the same job.  For guided weapons, it's usually something that is eighter added to the aircraft (Laser Designator) or into the weapon itself (JDAM).  Weapons on the F-35 will be the same as the ones currently in the SH inventory.  What kind of experience of knowledge do you have about weaponery/gunnery?

I've given you enough data and info, yet you still seem to be the only one who doesn't understand why. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you any further. There is more info our there proving why JSF > SH on so many levels and why the USN will phaseout the SH when the JSF's are ready for delivery.

Actually, you have given lots of speculation.  That's about it.  You never came back with a real straight answer as to what it brings more..  The difference between the USN and us is that the USN has the money to equip itself with a decent fleet of JSF.  We don't.

All you can do at this stage is compare data, statistics and information on both aircraft. Everyone already knows what will go into the Grippen NG. The JSF is still growing and will outmatch it due to developments in technology.

Where are you taking your "data"?  There is no official performance data out there for the F-35 quite yet.  

How can you say the F-35 will outmatch the Grippen that early in the game?  Speculations or facts?  You don't have to answer...  We all know there isn't enough data available out there to come to a conclusion.

One question you have to ask yourself is why no other countries purchased the Superhornet in large quantities for their main fleets. The USN basically had no choice, and the Aussies are only using it until the JSF comes online. Currently, more and more countries are not even CONSIDERING the SH as a viable alternative to more advanced aircraft like the Grippen NG, JSF, Block 60 F-16, etc. IMO, Canada will probably do the same in 2012 or whenever they decide to hold their competition.

All the aircraft you named are single engine aircrafts.  Canada is kinda unique in the sense that we have a very large territory to cover and we don,t have much money to protect it.  We can't afford to loose aircrafts up North when it could be avoided by using a 2 engine aircraft.  Like it or not, pilots like to feel safe.  I think that sense of security would be greatly improved by flying a 2 engines aircraft.  After all, we are the one that take the airplane, fly it, and may not come back.  

I believe and hope that the 2 engine debate will be a great factor in the fighter replacement program.  Not only to make the pilot feel safe, but also for other reasons like combat survivability.

I'll end my contribution to this discussion by what an instructor of mine recently told me (experienced fighter pilot):  "This is my first tour I fly a single engine jet. I don't have enough of my 2 hands to count how many times I had to flame out an engine in flight in my career... I hate that single engine crap."  The very next day, we lost a Hawk to a catastrophic engine failure on an IFR departure.

 

[belka]

After all, we are the one that take the airplane, fly it, and may not come back.  

That is why you get paid the big bucks. If a pilot is afraid to fly in a single, I suggest they find another occupation.

 

[aesop081]

FYI, the Grippen NG already exists and is in operation.  

Grippen is already in service, Grippen NG is not.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Grippen is already in service, Grippen NG is not.

My appologies, I thought I saw the NGs in Winnipeg last August coming back from Nellis.  It was the C/D models.  I will edit my post to reflect this...