F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[SupersonicMax]

It seems to me like we are "stuck" with the JSF.

Why?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

It seems to me like we are "stuck" with the JSF.

Odd, did we actually out ink to paper to buy this aircraft?

 

[OldSolduer]

I'm no expert, but I ahven't seen any big news releases regarding the purchase of a new jet fighter...

 

[SupersonicMax]

The only money we put into the program was by Industry Canada, to guarantee that some part of the airplane will be made in Canada.  Otherwise, the CF or DND didn't put a penny into the program.  We do, however, have a Fighter Replacement Team in Ottawa.  They, as opposed to NINJA, explore every possibility, not only the JSF.

 

[belka]

Why?

I don't see anyother viable option really. You can almost countout European products due to our friendliness and political relations with the US, Russian stuff...forget about it.

What do we have left to choose from?

-F-35's
-Superhornets
-F-15 variants
-F-16 variants

Anything else?

 

[Mike Baker]

So what is wrong with having Superhornets?


(The un-educated on the Air Force)
Beaver

 

[belka]

So what is wrong with having Superhornets?


(The un-educated on the Air Force)
Beaver

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf

Important part - USN rates the F/A-18E/F as only 50% as effective as the F-35. While it might be a good performer right NOW, it's not necessarily the most capable in the long term. We must move into the future and past the Superhornet, it's an "old" platform, relatively speaking.

 

[SupersonicMax]

50% as effective in what aspect.  You can't quantify an aircraft as 50% more effective.  There are too many variables involved...    I could easily say the F-35 is 60% as effective as the Superhornet cost-wise...  It's not an old platform.  Everything is new, and you were the first one to say it... 

Why do we NEED the JSF again?

 

[aesop081]

Grippen NG

 

[aesop081]

In the timeframe we are looking at replacing the CF-188......the replacement aircraft is in the design/ testing stage not in service. Even the super hornet will be older technology when we are ready for a CF-188 replacement.

 

[SupersonicMax]

An other argument for going to 2 engines is the combat survivability of the aircraft.  Read about how many F-16's came back after taking an IR seeking SAM up the engine and compare it to how many Hornets made it back to the carrier/base after a similar accident.  PERSONALLY, I'd rather fly on 2 engines.

 

[thunderchild]

We don't have to commit to the F-35 until 2012 right?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

An other argument for going to 2 engines is the combat survivability of the aircraft.  Read about how many F-16's came back after taking an IR seeking SAM up the engine and compare it to how many Hornets made it back to the carrier/base after a similar accident.  PERSONALLY, I'd rather fly on 2 engines.

2 engines vs 1 shouldn't make much of a difference to a proximity fused warhead.

 

[SupersonicMax]

drunksubmrnr, the point is that the second engine is shielded from the 1st.  If it kills 1 engine, it may not kill the second one.  If it kills the only engine, you WILL have to punch out.  Contrary to what some people think, just because you get hit doesn't mean your plane blows up....  Again, look up the numbers, I believe they are available (Hornet vs Viper).

 

[thunderchild]

I'm looking at my atlas and it seems to me that there is a huge amount of space between airfields , I'd rather my son be flying on 2 engines just incase he flames out or who nows what goes wrong. By the time we get a new fighter it will be our kids  who will have to fly it. I'd like to give them as many options as possable.

 

[belka]

As much as I personally don't like it, the F-35 will probably be NATO's next fighter. You can forget about the Superhornet, it's a full generation behind the JSF. The whole two engine vs one engine fighter issue is a moot point. I'm sure there will be a few pilots who won't like transitioning from the hornet to the JSF, but there will be alot who would prefer to fly the latest and greatest toy. A pilot who is afraid of flying on one engine could always transfer to an Aurora or Herc fleet, they have plenty of engines for their safety.

 

[Strike]

Ninja,

You know the old saying: Better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, then in the air wishing you were on the ground?

When you are flying a multi-engined aircraft and you lose and engine, the second part rarely happens (unless you're in a Griffon and the DA is absurdly high  ;D ).

As for 1 engine vs 2 being a moot point, I beg to differ.  Ever wonder why NONE of our operational manned aircraft (notice the manned part, so the UAV is out...how are things by the way Loachman?) are single engine?  Read posts from pilots and other aviators who are in the air and you will get your answer.  Sorry, but we all want 2 engines.  However, you're already working on an aircraft with 2 engines if I'm guessing right.  Why don't you talk to the pilots on your end and see what their views are?  I believe there's an old fighter guy up in your HQ who could give you a few opinions on the subject.

 

[belka]

You know the old saying: Better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, then in the air wishing you were on the ground?

When you are flying a multi-engined aircraft and you lose and engine, the second part rarely happens (unless you're in a Griffon and the DA is absurdly high  ;D ).

As for 1 engine vs 2 being a moot point, I beg to differ.  Ever wonder why NONE of our operational manned aircraft (notice the manned part, so the UAV is out...how are things by the way Loachman?) are single engine?  Read posts from pilots and other aviators who are in the air and you will get your answer.  Sorry, but we all want 2 engines.  However, you're already working on an aircraft with 2 engines if I'm guessing right.  Why don't you talk to the pilots on your end and see what their views are?  I believe there's an old fighter guy up in your HQ who could give you a few opinions on the subject.

I don't doubt that PILOTS love two engines and I agree that if I was a pilot I'd prefer two engines myself, for safety sake. But, just because a fighter has two engines doesn't make it anymore reliable. Take the Hornet and Viper for example. The F-16 can also fly with one engine out, the Hornet can barely fly with both of its engines running. Haven spoken to someone who maintained both jets, I can tell you from a maintenance standpoint the Hornet had nothing on the Viper. Very unreliable and maintainability is a nightmare, ask any Hornet handler about the switching valves and hydraulic system migration problems, not to mention the landing gear system that bends and twists on every touchdown. Two engines also means more maintenance hours. The laws of stats can't stop that no matter if it is an F-4 or the Eurofighter. 2 engines ( $$$ ) plus all the associated systems x2 that have to be maintained. Minus the carrier ability, an F-16 can do all combat missions just as good if not better than an F-18, only with less cost - that is why it is the sales king. At the time, Canada chose the Hornet only because of it's twin powerplants, which is understandable for the vastness of this country.

If Canada is to continue the trend of buying two-engined fighters, what options do we have? The superhornet, an aircraft that is already outdated and not really an upgrade of our current C/D models (R2)? Only real option left is the F-22 or a newer variant of the F-15. Both of which are extremely pricey to fly and maintain.

 

[SupersonicMax]

The price of an airplane goes much farther than acquisition and maintenance cost.  What happens when you loose an engine in a Viper or F-35 over Northern Canada? You loose the airframe and potentially the pilot (few millions for both, plus all the experience and corporate knowledge of an experienced pilot). What happens if you get your only engine shot by IR SAM or AAA in combat?  You punch out, potentially loose a pilot to the enemy (or worse, he dies) and definately loose an aircraft.  Now do the same thing with a second engine.  The aircraft has the opportunity to come back, get fixed, and be sent again in Combat.  The pilot can too go back to combat.  I don't care how reliable that engine is, an IR SAM or AAA will damage it. 

Small facts for you, during the Gulf War, IR SAMs were responsible for the majority of our losses.  AAAs were responsible for most of the damage inflicted to our aircraft (our as in Allies). 

I,m going to reiterate a question I asked you 10X.  What does the F-35 has more to offer that we need that the Superhornet doesn't offer?

As far as the problems you say the Hornets have, they have been fixed on the Superhornet (planing like failure comes to my mind)

Just a question, how does a viper fly with 0 engine?  It will glide, but that's about it.  Can't go very far.  Just enough to get you out of the concentration of enemy to punch out.

 

[belka]

The price of an airplane goes much farther than acquisition and maintenance cost.  What happens when you loose an engine in a Viper or F-35 over Northern Canada? You loose the airframe and potentially the pilot (few millions for both, plus all the experience and corporate knowledge of an experienced pilot). What happens if you get your only engine shot by IR SAM or AAA in combat?  You punch out, potentially loose a pilot to the enemy (or worse, he dies) and definately loose an aircraft.  Now do the same thing with a second engine.  The aircraft has the opportunity to come back, get fixed, and be sent again in Combat.  The pilot can too go back to combat.  I don't care how reliable that engine is, an IR SAM or AAA will damage it. 

Sometimes there are other things to consider besides the pilot. Yes, without a pilot the aircraft is useless, but without serviceable aircraft, pilots are just an expensive idle asset. Why do you think the F-16 was so popular? It's basically a "throwaway" fighter. It was cheap, reliable and you could buy them in large numbers. Maintenance in wartime and on deployments is not as easy as you make it out to be as-is the somewhat rosy picture you make when an airplane takes damage in battle. Lets assume a direct hit to an engine in flight, the single-engined fighter is forced to "land". The twin-engined can probably fly to the nearest airfield and make an emergency landing. Now, lets also assume a hit to something other than an engine, like a flight control servo or surface or your landing gear. The number of engines you have won't matter if you can't control your aircraft. My point is, the number of engines when under fire isn't always the deciding factor to whether or not you'll make it back home.

Small facts for you, during the Gulf War, IR SAMs were responsible for the majority of our losses.  AAAs were responsible for most of the damage inflicted to our aircraft (our as in Allies). 

I'm actually curious to what aircraft type were hit and which crashed or returned to fight another day.

I,m going to reiterate a question I asked you 10X.  What does the F-35 has more to offer that we need that the Superhornet doesn't offer?

Problem is, nothing. The F-35 doesn't offer anything that the SuperHornet can do, but at a cheaper rate. However, like already mentioned several times, the E/F is an old design and will already be obsolete when we receive the first one. The only choice we have that has the latest tech, an okay price and two engines to satisfy the drivers is the Typhoon.

As far as the problems you say the Hornets have, they have been fixed on the Superhornet (planing like failure comes to my mind)

While the landing gear has been beefed up, other problems still remain. The Avionics, from what I've read, is horrendous for it's serviceability. The Superhornet is nothing more than a bomb truck built for the USN and its carriers. The current C/D hornets are true fighter aircraft, they have excellent A2A maneuverability at low speeds, the Superhornet is weak....scary weak when it comes to speed and would do poorly against SU-2X/3X threats......China for example.

Just a question, how does a viper fly with 0 engine?  It will glide, but that's about it.  Can't go very far.  Just enough to get you out of the concentration of enemy to punch out.

It doesn't fly, but it glides very well.

I think that Canada's needs are unique. We need a multi-role, possibly twin-engined, fighter that can protect Canadian sovereignty while being able to respond to NATO needs and must last us into 2050-2060. So, what are we left with? The F-35 would be an okay choice that is new, but the newest F-16 can do everything, for cheaper and is readily available. The F-15 variants would be another good choice, but there is no multi-role F-15 and the price is extremely high. The Typhoon an excellent new fighter that can do air to air and air to ground effectively as well as patrol the northern shores without a problem on two-engines. Unfortunately, it's a European product and I don't know how well the Americans might take to a European fighter next door. I'd be willing to bet that if the Eurofighter was designed and built by the Americans, it would be in Canadian hands as a replacement.