F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[FJAG]

OTTAWA – The Conservative government will signal it is serious about buying an alternative to the F-35 fighter jet by asking rival manufacturers about the cost and availability of their planes, according to defence industry sources.

The formal request for information will be issued to rivals like Boeing, which produces the Superhornet, and the consortium that makes the Eurofighter Typhoon, asking them what jets are available, and at what cost, if the Canadian government decides to ditch the trouble-plagued F-35 purchase.

And so it starts

Full article here: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/23/harper-government-seeking-alternatives-to-troubled-f-35-fighter-jet-sources/

 

[PuckChaser]

Lets get some Spitfires while we're at it.

 

[The Bread Guy]

And so it starts

Full article here: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/23/harper-government-seeking-alternatives-to-troubled-f-35-fighter-jet-sources/

Along those lines, a bit of message slippage from the Public Works Minister earlier this week during Question Period? (Hat tip to ipolitics.ca for spotting this one)

.... the level of oversight and transparency on this acquisition is unprecedented. We are not going to purchase any replacements for the CF-18 until all of this due diligence is completed. I have told the member previously of a full options analysis, which is a full evaluation of all choices, not simply a refresh. When it comes to the statement of requirements, the review of options will not be constrained by the previous statement of requirements ....

The full Q&A attached if Hansard link above doesn't work right.

 

[AlexanderM]

Just as things seem to be finally progressing fairly well with the F35 program.  I was just starting to think, hey they seem to be getting it together now. 

 

[Haletown]

Or they are playing politics, feeding some chum to the press, watching them churn around for a bit and then use the residual confusion as proof they considered all the possible other aircraft.  If they leak a few stories about some other aircraft being looked at, the not too bright press will go after them for whatever perceived or manufactured faults they can invent about the plane to slag the government and then they'll claim we should have bought the F-35s!


Spitfires would be lovely, P51's delightful but I am favourable to F86 Sabres.

 

[observor 69]

I like these, good enough for the USN:

 

[Haletown]

I like these, good enough for the USN:

The F-35C models are also fine &  dandy for the USN and the B model is the chosen ride for Marines branch of the same USN.

As you say . . .  If it is good enough for the USN.

 

[observor 69]

And as an article I previously quoted said:

"Navy leaders have long been skeptical of stealth, and for good reason. Stealth certainly shrinks an aircraft's radar return, but it cannot eliminate it. And because Moore's Law doubles available computing power every 18 months, radar systems just keep getting ever better at detecting the subtle clues of a stealth plane's presence. From a Navy perspective, the only sure way to keep a radar from seeing you is to jam it -- and then, ideally, to blow it up."


Rest of article at LINK

 

[WingsofFury]

And as an article I previously quoted said:

"Navy leaders have long been skeptical of stealth, and for good reason. Stealth certainly shrinks an aircraft's radar return, but it cannot eliminate it. And because Moore's Law doubles available computing power every 18 months, radar systems just keep getting ever better at detecting the subtle clues of a stealth plane's presence. From a Navy perspective, the only sure way to keep a radar from seeing you is to jam it -- and then, ideally, to blow it up."

Rest of article at LINK

So in other words you'd like to see Super Hornet -E models flown by the RCAF which are going to start being retired in 2025 by the US escorted by EA-18G Growlers who are expected to be in service until 2035....which means we'll have an entire fleet that will only be supported for 20 years.

Just out of curiosity, how would you explain that the $9B investment in a "cheaper" Super Hornet airframe will only last for 20 years to Canadians?

 

[Kirkhill]

Navy Plan:

Everybody make loud noises and they won't notice the guy in the middle.

Air Force Plan:

Let the Navy make loud noises and we will stay far away from them.

 

[dimsum]

So in other words you'd like to see Super Hornet -E models flown by the RCAF which are going to start being retired in 2025 by the US escorted by EA-18G Growlers who are expected to be in service until 2035....which means we'll have an entire fleet that will only be supported for 20 years.

Just out of curiosity, how would you explain that the $9B investment in a "cheaper" Super Hornet airframe will only last for 20 years to Canadians?

To add to that, wouldn't the whole idea of a nation's fighter force relying on another nation's EW force to prevent said fighter force from being shot down within minutes of a shooting war be ridiculous?  I understand that we'd likely be going into a US-led coalition, but the whole idea of having this massive handicap sounds short-sighted (at best).

And why would the RCAF just look at the E-model?  The RAAF bought the dual-seat F model for a reason, and I'm going to assume it's not just b/c there were a bunch of F-111 Navs kicking around.  Plus, the F model is able to be "upgraded" into Growler capability, which the RAAF have already confirmed they will be doing.  But, I'll let the fast-jet folks chime in on that one.

 

[WingsofFury]

To add to that, wouldn't the whole idea of a nation's fighter force relying on another nation's EW force to prevent said fighter force from being shot down within minutes of a shooting war be ridiculous?  I understand that we'd likely be going into a US-led coalition, but the whole idea of having this massive handicap sounds short-sighted (at best).

And why would the RCAF just look at the E-model?  The RAAF bought the dual-seat F model for a reason, and I'm going to assume it's not just b/c there were a bunch of F-111 Navs kicking around.  Plus, the F model is able to be "upgraded" into Growler capability, which the RAAF have already confirmed they will be doing.  But, I'll let the fast-jet folks chime in on that one.

While the RCAF has had EW platforms in the past, these were used primarily for training purposes to act as threat replication aircraft.  Unlike Australia, the RCAF never had a dedicated EW platform.  The experts can explain better than I why Australia requires an EW complement to its fighter force, but I believe it would have to do with the distance to a possible adversary and their capabilities.

While it would be a nice addition to the fleet, the trend is towards a single platform.  This is why the F-35 hold the advantage, as it will have a longer service life than that of the Super Hornet by at least 15 years. 

Of course, the other option is to simply use the F-35 as the EW platform as, according the US Marine Corps. hierarchy:

"The airplane itself … with the AESA radar and sensors and information sharing capability is a pretty significant EW platform right now,” said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos at a roundtable meeting with reporters in the Pentagon Aug. 23.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/08/24/no-plans-to-build-f-35-ew-variant/#ixzz2DFrSXfUM
Defense.org

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Of course, the other option is to simply use the F-35 as the EW platform as, according the US Marine Corps. hierarchy

The USMC dropped that plan a while back. They're going to use UAV's instead.

 

[WingsofFury]

The USMC dropped that plan a while back. They're going to use UAV's instead.

Link?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_01_23_2012_p24-415796.xml

 

[HB_Pencil]

And as an article I previously quoted said:

"Navy leaders have long been skeptical of stealth, and for good reason. Stealth certainly shrinks an aircraft's radar return, but it cannot eliminate it. And because Moore's Law doubles available computing power every 18 months, radar systems just keep getting ever better at detecting the subtle clues of a stealth plane's presence. From a Navy perspective, the only sure way to keep a radar from seeing you is to jam it -- and then, ideally, to blow it up."


Rest of article at LINK

Frankly, that article is completely misleading and factually incorrect. Lets look at the Naval Air's key fighter/attack development programs for the past 25 years;

ATA  -1985 - 1991 - Stealth Attack bomber (A-12. cancelled)
F/A-18E - 1991~present - Interim capability to incorporate some stealth capabilities until new platforms are fielded.
NATF - 1991~1993 - Navalized version of the F-22 (Cancelled)
A-X/A/F-X - 1992~1993 - Advanced stealthy strike aircraft (cancelled- rolled into JAST)
JAST/ - 1993 ~ 1996 - initial research into a new stealthy strike aircraft to replace the F/A-18C and F/A-18E (rolled into JSF)
JSF/F-35  1996~present - Stealthy fighter program to replace F/A-18C, F/A-18E, AV-8.
J-UCAS -2001~2006 - Joint Air Force-Navy funded DARPA program to procure a stealthy unmanned strike platform (cancelled). 
UCAS-D  - 2006~present- US Navy continuation of the JUCAS to field a stealthy unmanned strike platform on Carrier decks.
F/A-XX - 2011~present - New stealthy air superiority/attack platform to be fielded in 2025~30.

Seems to me if there is one constant between ALL of the Navy's strike/fighter programs is that they have stealthy features.

Moreover nobody is claiming the future of air warfare won't include a mix of EW and Stealth platforms. If anything the F-35's future is completely based on that premise; its EW systems are designed to multiply the effects of that system. For example, the An/APG-81 is designed to operate as a mid level Electronic Jammer.  Having a dedicated offboard system just offers more opportunities to carry out operations. It also helps to extend the F/A-18E/F fleet's viability as a strike platform a little longer.

And why would the RCAF just look at the E-model?  The RAAF bought the dual-seat F model for a reason, and I'm going to assume it's not just b/c there were a bunch of F-111 Navs kicking around.  Plus, the F model is able to be "upgraded" into Growler capability, which the RAAF have already confirmed they will be doing.  But, I'll let the fast-jet folks chime in on that one.

Actually, that's not too far from the truth. The original intention behind the F buy was to obtain a replacement for the early retirement of the F-111C. They paid for the growler upgrades so that they could get some utility out of the platform after 2025. Again, the smart money is to have growlers to provide EW support for F-35 fleets in the future.

 

[WingsofFury]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_01_23_2012_p24-415796.xml

While the future is moving towards UAV's for the role, the current fleet of EA-18G's will be carrying the NGJ until their retirement from the point it is put into production.

As costs are streamlined in the USA, who knows where this will all end up in 20 years time.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

While the future is moving towards UAV's for the role, the current fleet of EA-18G's will be carrying the NGJ until their retirement from the point it is put into production.

I agree.

As costs are streamlined in the USA, who knows where this will all end up in 20 years time.

The major issue with an F-35 EW variant is that there's no two-seater version to base it on, and creating that version will be VERY expensive. They're choking on the minor issue of fitting the NGJ to the F-35, so there's no chance of major issues like a second seat being developed.

 

[WingsofFury]

The major issue with an F-35 EW variant is that there's no two-seater version to base it on, and creating that version will be VERY expensive. They're choking on the minor issue of fitting the NGJ to the F-35, so there's no chance of major issues like a second seat being developed.

That's just it - with the F-35 a 2nd seat wouldn't be necessary due to the sensor fusion package which would already be in use on the aircraft.

In the article which you linked, it states:

...ensure that NGJ will be flexible enough to be used by large numbers of different platforms.

According to the "glossy brochure", the F-35 is going to change the way in which air power is utilised and, while at this time I don't understand it as well as those who know about such things, one can see that the world of air power is changing in very big ways with the introduction of newer technologies.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

That's just it - with the F-35 a 2nd seat wouldn't be necessary due to the sensor fusion package which would already be in use on the aircraft.

DAS would probably help the EWO in the second seat, but wouldn't replace the need for them. It would also drive the cost of integrating the EA gear up.

According to the "glossy brochure", the F-35 is going to change the way in which air power is utilised and, while at this time I don't understand it as well as those who know about such things, one can see that the world of air power is changing in very big ways with the introduction of newer technologies.

What does that actually mean in terms of a Growler replacement?