Canada to make it harder for US companies to win its fighter competition

a reply to: jjkenobi

Canada also has more Plutonium.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: MteWamp

Excuse me, but what world class Canadian fighter?

That was kinda the point.

removed

None of this is surprising because of recent actions by The US (or POTUS). If I were the Canucks I would tell the US to perform a reverse bowl movement on themselves and procure the Grippen or Typhoon.

The Grippen would be an a good choice IMHO. They dont have a huge need for long range strike to be honest and even if the US has a huge falling out with Canada they still need to defend the airspace.

a reply to: gariac

Hardly the same situation. The F-35 is buggy. It still has difficulty flying long distances due to overheating. This is s problem in the carrier version since it means the carrier group had to be closer to the target.

No it doesn't. I have already provided this information before, which I am certain you looked at. The F-35 does not have problems "flying long distances".

It has problems at low altitude whilst very low on fuel (just like the F/A-18) and passing BIT with hot fuel, which requires certain workarounds. In the latter case, you're unlikely going to get hot fuel on a carrier, because you're not going to have fuel trucks sitting over asphalt all day nor are your aircraft going to be sitting all day in the desert sun with no airflow.

The link you later provided about the F-35 "lacking range" has nothing to do with overheating, it was about the range of the F-35.

Regarding the range of the F-35C, it carries as much fuel as an F-14 with two external tanks. It also has less drag, is lighter, has internal stores, and a more efficient engine. Radius on an air-to-ground mission is going to be 650-700 nmi and for an air-to-air mission 750-800 nmi. That's from the carrier and includes reserves. These numbers are significantly greater than the F/A-18 A/B/C/D and somewhat greater than the F/A-18 E/F (without conformal tanks), perhaps an F/A-18 E/F with conformal tanks could match it (wouldn't be a 7.5 G airframe in that configuration though!).

If this isn't good enough:

i. Don't build a supersonic fighter, instead build something more like the A-6.
ii. Build a larger and more expensive fighter.
iii. Develop variable cycle engines.
iv. Tankers.
v. Don't operate from carriers.

Anyways let's not derail this to be about aircraft carriers. Canada is cold and probably do not need a fighter optimized for hot climates anyway, except for the times they make small contributions to overseas operations in hot climates. Under those conditions, they can use workarounds for hot fuel issues.

BTW, the thermal management system of the Gripen actually has many similarities to that in the F-35. Ram air and fuel cool a PAO coolant loop. I wonder how it does in hot climates, considering it was designed and made for Sweden.

a reply to: C0bzz

Trust me, I'm all for less carriers. Expensive and 100% offensive. I don't see the need to project power. Meanwhile China uses soft power (Belt and Road).

External tanks means no stealth.

Fly high for cooling? I suppose that is a matter of how much faith you put in its stealth. Me, I rather be under the radar.

The F-35 is a Swiss Army knife. It will never really be optimal for each branch

a reply to: gariac

Trust me, I'm all for less carriers. Expensive and 100% offensive. I don't see the need to project power. Meanwhile China uses soft power (Belt and Road).

Off-Topic.

External tanks means no stealth.

I said tankers, not external tanks. Refuelling can be conducted outside of high threat environments, although I concede this is not preferable to native range. The F-117 did this in the first Gulf War and the F-22 and F-35 continue this today.

Fly high for cooling?

All aircraft can only fly long distances at medium or high altitudes, the air is thicker and hotter at low altitudes. Other aircraft also have issues - as I have already mentioned - at low fuel state, low altitudes, especially at high speed. And, on a long range strike you are likely to be over enemy territory at relatively high fuel state anyway, otherwise you have bigger issues than some avionics overheating. So there is the option of flying at high altitude for fuel efficiency and cooling to the ingress point then dropping to a more tactical altitude as required. On the way home the reverse can be done.

For stealth, the F-35 can therefore, fly at low altitude (with certain limitations) to rely on terrain masking and low observables or medium altitude and rely on low observables. Low obervales do not have no impact at low altitude. Anyway, other aircraft only have the option of terrain masking.

Also as you drop the altitude to extreme levels, the problem you will eventually have is that you limit the ability for your sensors to see what is around of you and you may be putting yourself outside the reach of friendly line-of-sight datalinks. The CONOPS for the F-35 is to operate as a four-ship within line-of-sight, but separated by tens of miles, sharing information.

You criticized the F-35 for range. Anyone want to guess how much range an F-35 has cruising at Mach 0.9 and 20,000 feet compares with a Super Hornet at Mach 0.9 and 100 feet? Maybe we should penalize the Super Hornet even more, since it has to be routed specially to be masked by terrain. Then penalize it again because its (inferior) sensors won't be able to see much at 100 feet. Then penalize it again because weapons don't go as far when released at low altitude.

And, if you happen to mistakenly fly over a Pantsir that you didn't detect, then you're dead. Hence why aircraft like the F-111 and Tornado were not survivable even in the first Gulf War, when the RAF lost six of the sixty it deployed.

If you need to rely on a large degree of terrain masking, it may be preferable to launch cruise missiles instead.

The F-35 is a Swiss Army knife.

You just criticized the F-35 because it apparently cannot fly a profile that is not terribly relevant and wasn't designed to do. Swiss Army Knife?

It will never really be optimal for each branch

The RCAF, Swiss Air Force, and RAAF decided to buy the Hornet already despite it having scars from making it carrier capable. In other words, this is already something that many of the worlds air forces have to deal with already. And there were perfectly valid reasons to buying the F/A-18 over the F-15, Mirage 2000, or F-16 at the time.

Today there is not an option of buying a 5th generation fighter without scars from making it multi-variant. There are no aircraft available that exist. Do you then go back a generation or deal with the scars?

For the record I want Canada to buy Rafale for political and industrial reasons.

a reply to: C0bzz

All aircraft can only fly long distances at medium or high altitudes, the air is thicker and hotter at low altitudes.

This is an odd statement. I guess long distance is relative. The B-1b for example was designed to fly under the radar.

If you ever designed anything with Swiss Army knife type specs, you would understand my statement. This is a truism.

There is a reason USAF began to fly LO aircraft at altitude and not low-level. Well, actually several. Inverse-square rule, ride-comfort/stresses, passive and active FOV, extended standoff range, fuel burn etc, etc

a reply to: C0bzz

Oh, you basically covered it.